Kalyan Dutta, C.J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed by Ram Murti under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the judgment marked Ex. 16 dated October 30, 1980, which was passed by non-petitioner No. 2 and whereby the election petition filed by non-petitioner No. 1 was accepted,
(2.) The writ petition arises under the following facts and circumstances:-Election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 83 LNP, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, was held on February 5, 1978. The petitioner and Kashi Ram, non-petitioner No. 1, contested the election for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner received 868 valid votes and Kashi Ram, non-petitioner No. 1, secured 809 valid votes. As many as 43 votes were declared invalid. Consequently, the petitioner was declared elected to the office of Sarpanch by a clear majority of 59 votes. Kashi Ram, non-petitioner No. 1, thereupon, presented an election petition against the petitioner under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, in the Court of the Munsiff, Karanpur, but the petition was, later on, transferred to the Court of Munsiff, Padampur, non-petitioner No. 2. It was alleged in the election petition by non-petitioner No. 1 that the Returning Officer committed serious irregularities in conducting the election by nonobservance with the provisions of Rules 25, 36 and 41 of the Rules. It was further stated that the Returning Officer did not count the ballot papers in accordance with the Rules inasmuch as 15 ballot papers were declared invalid by fixing second seal on them in order to favour the returned candidate, i.e., the petitioner it was also alleged in para Number 4 (4) of the election petition that some ballot papers were wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner although the voters did not vote for him and some ballot papers were wrongly declared invalid, although they ought to have been counted in favour of non- petitioner No. 1. The non-petitioner No. 1 prayed to the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes, but he rejected the prayer without any sufficient ground. The non-petitioner No. 1 further alleged in para No. 1 of the election petition that the petitioner obtained the assistance of Madan Lal Patwari and Gram Sewak of the circle for furtherance of the prospects of his election and, in this manner, committed a corrupt practice because these officers openly canvassed for the petitioner and got a good number of votes polled in his favour.
(3.) The petitioner, in response to the notice of the election petition issued to him, appeared in the Court of Munsiff, Padampur, and filed his written statement wherein he denied all the allegations made against him in the election petition. The learned Munsiff, upon pleadings of the parties, framed the following 9 issues and proceeded to record the evidence of the parties:-- ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. Non-petitioner No. 1, i.e., the election petitioner examined himself and produced 9 witnesses, viz., Raja Ram AW 2, Bhajan Lal A W 3, Khumana Ram AW 4, Gandhi Singh AW 5, Bhagirath AW 6, Sohan Lal AW 7, Dana Ram AW 8, Bhajan Lal AW 9 and Mal Singh AW 10, in support of his case. The petitioner in rebuttal examined himself and produced Bhagwana Ram NAW 2, and Madan Lal Patwari NAW 3. The learned Munsiff after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing final arguments decided issues Nos. 1, 6 and 8 in favour of the election petitioner i.e., non-petitioner No. 1. The rest of the issues Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were decided in favour of the petitioner and against the election- petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff accepted the election petition filed by non-petitioner No. 1. The election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch was declared to be void. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Munsiff, dated October, 30, 1980, marked Ex. 16, the petitioner has moved this Court for exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction on the following grounds:- (1) that learned Munsiff committed an error apparent on the face of the record in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1, because non-petitioner No. 1 has made no specific allegation in the election petition as to which of the ballot-box was not shown to him before it was put at the polling booth by the Returning Officer. It was necessary for the non-petitioner No. 1 to give out such specification. Apart from this, the non-petitioner No. 1 could not lead satisfactory evidence to prove non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules by the Returning Officer; (2) that the learned Munsif failed to consider an important fact that the non-petitioner No. 1 was required to prove under Rule 78 (d) of the Rules that the result of the election, so far as it concerned the petitioner, was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder. The non- petitioner No. 1 neither alleged in the election petition as to how the result of the election, so far as it concerned the petitioner, was materially affected, nor has he been able to prove the same. The learned Munsiff ought to have given a specific finding as to how the result of the election was materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the Rules. He, without giving any finding, wrongly assumed that non-compliance with the Rules was proved; (3) that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to come to a conclusion that the petitioner obtained any assistance from Madanlal Patwari and Bhagwana Ram Gram Sewak for the furtherance of the prospects of his election. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the learned Munsiff committed an error of law as well as of fact apparent on the face of the record in deciding issue No. 6 in favour of the respondent No. 1; (4) that the learned Munsiff also failed to consider the other important fact that the non-petitioner No. 1 could not succeed in proving that the alleged corrupt practice was committed by the Patwari and the Gram Sewak with the consent or connivance of the petitioner. There is also no evidence to prove that the result of the election has been materially affected in so far as the petitioner is concerned on account of any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the petitioner by the Patwari and the Gram Sewak and the learned Munsiff committed an error apparent on the lace of the record in deciding issue No. 8 in favour of non-petitioner No. 1, because the inspection of the ballot papers could not be granted as a routine because of vague allegations made by non-petitioner No. 1 in his election petition.;