Dave, J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated the 24th July, 1962 dismissing the appellants' writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that after the general election of the Mundwa Gram Panchayat. , two ladies were to be co-opted to the said Panchayat and for that purpose, the co-option proceedings were held on 5th January, 1960. THE appellants were declared co-opted to the panchayat while the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Smt. Heeran and Smt. Pyarudi were rejected by the Sarpanch on the ground that the Panchas who had filed the nominations had not taken oath under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (Act. No. XXI of 1953 - hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). THE respondents Nos. 2 & 3 thereupon filed election petitions under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) challenging the co-option of the appellants. THE learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the Panchas to take oath before filing the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and that their nominations were wrongly rejected. He, therefore, allowed the election petitions and declared the co-option proceedings to be void. Aggrieved by that decision dated the 4th October, 1961, the appellants filed writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. THE learned Judge who heard the said application followed the view earlier taken by him in Manakchand Vs. THE State of Raj. (l) and Moolchand Jhanjhari Vs. Collector Ajmer (2) and upheld the decision of the Civil Judge. It is against this decision that the present appeal is directed. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the view which was expressed by the learned Judge in Manakchand Vs. State of Rajasthan (l) was based on the interpretation of sec. 61 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and that taken in Moolchand Jhanjari Vs. Collector, Ajmer (2) was based on the interpretation of sec. 72 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, that the language of sec. 15 of the Act was very different and that he had committed an error in interpreting this section on the analogy of the sections appearing in other Acts. Since the decision of the appeal turns upon the interpretation of sec. 15 of the Act, it would be proper to reproduce it here. It runs as follows: "oath or affirmation - Every Panch or Sarpanch shall, as soon as possible after his election or appointment, as the case may be, make in the prescribed manner the prescribed oath or affirmation of his office and, unless this is done, shall not perform any of his functions under this Act. " It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that according to the language of the said section, every Panch or Sarpanch should take oath of office "as soon as possible after his election or appointment" and this shows that the legislature did not approve of any delay on the part of Panch or Sarpanch in taking oath of his office. It is next contended that the further use of the words "shall not perform any of his functions under this Act" clearly shows that a Panch or Sarpanch cannot proceed even to file nomination paper for the purpose of co-option because co-option is one of the functions to be performed by him under the Act. We have given due consideration to this argument and have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel to the extent that it would be proper for every Pancha and Sar Panch to take oath of his office after his election or appointment without unnecessary delay but the question which arises for determination in this case is : whether a nomination paper filed by him for the purpose of co-option would be invalid for the mere reason that he does not take oath of the office before filing it ? It the language of sec. 15 (noted above) be given only a literal interpretation, it is not incapable of being given the meaning which learned counsel wants to give, but it is well settled that a literal interpretation is not necessarily, nor always, the only correct interpretation. On the contrary, it is more proper for the Court to give to the language of the law a rational or reasonable interpretation so long as such a meaning is not repugnant or offensive to the text of the law. It is the duty of the Court to bring out the real sense of the language used by the legislature. Now, it may be pointed out that a person no doubt becomes a Panch or a Sarpanch immediately after the declaration of the result of his election, or his appointment, as the case may be, and it is also true that he cannot file any nomination for co-option purposes prior to his becoming a Panch but his functions as a Panch or Sarpanch do not in fact commence so long as the Panchayat is not fully constituted. In our opinion, the reference to the functions of a Panch in sec. 15 is to the functions which he has to perform after the formation of the Panchayat and which are specifically mentioned in Chapter III of the Act. The filing of a nomination paper for co-option of a member is not the function of the Panchayat. Co-option is only the final step for the formation of the Panchayat and in cases where co-option is neces-sary, the Panchayat itself is not complete so long as the required members are not co-opted. It need hardly be stressed that a Panchayat cannot perform any function so long as it is not validly constituted by law. A little examination of the scheme of the Act would make the position still clearer. It may be noted that sec. 15 appears in chapter II, which deals with establishment and constitution of Panchayats. Sec. 1 of the Act relates to short title, extent and commencement; sec. 2 deals with definitions; sec. 3 lays down how a State Government may by notification establish a Panchayat for a village (or a part of a village) or a group of villages ; sec. 4 lays down that a Panchayat shall consist of a Sarpanch and such number of Panchas, not being less than 5 or more than 15, as the State Government may fix; see. 5 deals with division of wards ; sec. 6 with election of Panchas ; sec. 7 with terms of their office ; sec. 7-A with their continuance in office until new elections ; sec. 8 with appointment of Panchas on failure to elect, and sec. 8-A with continuance and validation of certain Panchayats. Then, comes sec. 9 which lays down how certain Panchas should be co-opted. It provides that as soon as the election of Panchas and Sarpanch for a Panchayat is complete, certain persons would be co-opted in the prescribed manner by the Panchas so elected from amongst persons qualified to be elected as Panchas under the Act. According to this section. , if no woman has been elected to the panchayat, two women should be co-opted and if one woman has been elected, one woman only has to be co-opted. Similarly, it provides for the co-option of one person belonging to the scheduled castes and one person belonging to the scheduled tribes, if no such person has been elected to the panchayat. It also requires that a Sarpanch must convene a special meeting of the newly elected panchas within fifteen days after election for co-opting persons. A perusal of sec. 9 thus shows that in order to constitute a proper panchayat the co-option of certain members, if they are wanted, is absolutely necessary. It is only after the co-option that the panchayat can be said to be complete. Sec. 10 relates to electors, electoral rolls and right to vote. Sec. 11 relates to qualification of panchas; sec. 12 is about prohibition against holding office in more than one panchayat; sec. 13 about the election of sarpanch and upsarpanch and then sec. 14 requires that every election or appointment of a Sarpanch, Upsarpanch and a Panch shall be notified in the (official Gazette) in accordance with rules made under this Act. It is after these provisions that sec. 15 appears in the Act and it lays down that every Panch or Sarpanch should take oath or affirmation of office and should not perform any of his functions under the Act. The very sequence in which sec. 15 appears shows that the oath of office is not necessarily required to be taken before the co-option proceedings are held. It is not meant to suggest that oath of office cannot be taken before co-option proceedings are held. On the contrary, it may be proper for those who are already elected as panchas to take oath of office soon after their election even before the co-option proceedings are held; but if they file nomination papers for the co-option of certain members without taking oath of office the nomination papers so filed would not be illegal simply because oath of office is not taken. The oath prescribed in sec. 15 is to be taken as much by co-opted members as by persons already elected, and that is why the legislature seems to have provided this section after the co-option proceedings are complete. It may also be observed that in-fact the Panchas assume office only after the Panchayat is complete and the functions to which reference is made in sec. 15 are in fact those functions which are laid down in Chapter III of the Act. That Chapter specifically deals with the powers, duties, functions and administration of Panchayats. So in our opinion, the functions mentioned in sec. 15 refer to these functions and not to the mere filing of nomination papers for co-option of Panchas. It may be further pointed out that in the form of oath, it is prescribed in Schedule II of the Rules that a Panch has to swear or solemnly affirm that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and that he would faithfully discharge the duties upon which he is about to enter. The necessity of bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as a Panch does not arise so long as panchayat is not constituted. In the same way, the Panch is not required to discharge any duty upon which he is to enter to the constitution of the panchayat. For this reason also we think that taking of oath is not absolutely necessary prior to the co-option proceedings. It may again be pointed out that Rule 63 of the Rules prescribes the time and manner of making oath or affirmation. It lays down that the oath or affirmation shall be made by a Panch, Sarpanch or member of a Nyaya Panchayat at any time after the declaration of the result but within three months from the date of the notification of his name under sec. 14. The provision for notification under sec. 14 of the Act comes after co-option of the members, if it is necessary, and if it is made. It would thus appear that the period of three months for making oath or affirmation commences from the date of notification and not from the date of the election. Lastly, it may be pointed out that the procedure for co-option of Panchas is provided in Rules 50 to 55-A of the Rules and the rule about taking oath of office again appears thereafter in Rule 63. For all these reasons, we do not think that the learned Judge was wrong in holding the view that the nominations were not invalidated simply because the Panchas filing them did not take oath of the office. In Manak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (l) a similar question arose before another Division Bench of this Court. In that case also it was contended that the co-option of three respondents was invalid as the elected members were not administered oath before they proceeded to co-option. It was observed by the learned Judges. "that co-option of members is a step in the formation of the municipal board itself and although the elected members perform a duty when they co-opt other members under sec. 9/ they do not act as a Board in doing so. " It was further observed, "that the Act envisages a duty performed by a member on behalf of a Board while co-option takes place at a stage before the members begin to function as a Board. " This case was relied upon by the learned single Judge who was a party to it. Learned counsel for the appellants is correct to the extent that in the said case the question involved was of the interpretation of section 61 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalites Act' and that the language of that section was different. We also agree with the learned counsel to the extent that analogy from other piece of legislation should not be ordinarily adopted in interpreting the provisions of a particular law. In the present case, however, the learned Judge seems to have referred to the said case as also to Moolchand Jhanjhari Vs. Collector, Ajmer (2), because similar provisions for co-option of members were made in those Acts and although the language of the sections relating to co-option was slightly different, the principle involved in all these Acts was the same. In other words. , in all these cases the question: of principle involved was whether it was necessary for an elected member to take oath before filing nomination for the co-option of other members. If oath before co-option is necessary in one case, it should be equally necessary in the other case tool So far as the question of principle is concerned, we see no reason why the same legislature should have thought it necessary that in the case of Municipalities or Panchayat Samities, oath should be taken by members after co-option and why in the case of Panchayat they should take oath before co-option. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge was not altogether unjustified in referring to the said case. We think that there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. . ;