Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Laxminarain against the Chief Panchayat Officer, Rajasthan, and two others. He has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Panchayat Officer to carry out his duties under the Panchayat Act and Rules.
(2.) THE fact, which have given rise to this application, are these - THEre is a Panchayat in Sahawa. Elections to that Panchayat were held on the 19th of November, 1954, and 12 Panches were elected on that day. THE same date was fixed for the election of the Sarpanch also; but when the election of the Sarpanch began, these was a disturbance, and that election was postponed to the 5th of January, 1955, under rule 5 of the Panchayat Election Rules. On that day, two names were proposed namely that of the applicant Laxminarain, and of the opposite party Shivnarain. After sometime, however, Shivnarain's party left the place, and thereafter the Returning Officer declared Laxminarain elected unopposed. THEn he submitted a report to the Chief Panchayat Officer under rule 17 of the Panchayat Election Rules mentioning the names of the Sarpanch and the Panchas. THE Chief Panchayat Officer instead of notifying the names, started questioning the report, as appears from the file relating to this election received from the Chief Panchayat Officer. Eventually, the names of 12 Panchas were ordered to be notified, but the applicant's name was not so ordered, and the Chief Panchayat Officer ordered a re-election so far as the officer of the Sarpanch was concerned. THEreupon, the present application was made to this Court. THE main contention of the applicant is that the Chief Panchayat Officer has no jurisdiction to withhold notification of the name of the Sarpanch once he receives a report from the Returning Officer under rule 17. We are of opinion that this contention of the applicant is correct. The Panchayat Election Rules provide for the manner in which the Panchas and the Sarpanch are to be elected. After the election of the Panchas, Sarpanch, and Up-Sarpanch is over, the Returning Officer, under rule 16, has to prepare and certify as correct a return setting forth for each office separately the total number of electors who exercised their votes, the name or names of all the candidates, and the total number of votes secured by each. Thereafter, he makes a report to the Chief Panchayat Officer of the result of the election appending thereto the return under rule 16, and the proceedings drawn up by him, and specifically pointing out failure, if any, to elect for the purpose of taking action under sec. 8 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 13. Thereafter, rule 18 prescribes the duty of the Chief Panchayat Officer. Under that rule, the Chief Panchayat Officer shall, as soon as possible, upon receipt of the report under rule 17 - (a) make appointments, if necessary, under sec. 8 or sub-sec. (3) of sec, 13, (b) make a report to the State Government for appointing, it necessary, of an additional Panch under sec. 9, (c) notify the names of the Panchas, Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch so elected or appointed, and (d) announce such election and appointment by posting a notice at the officer of the Panchayat and also by beat of drum. The Chief Panchayat Officer has no authority to question the result of the election sent to him by the Returning Officer under rule 17. The result of the election can only be questioned under rule 19 which provides that the validity of the election of any Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch may be challenged by a petition presented by a defeated candidate or by any ten duly qualified electors to the Collector within 15 day from the date of the notification under rule 18. It is clear, therefore, that if there is any irregularity in the election, and any one wants to challenge the validity of the election of any Panch. Sarpanch, or Up-sarpanch, he had to proceed under rule 19. The Chief Panchayat Officer cannot turn himself into the Election Tribunal provided in rule 19, and refuse to notify the names of persons reported to him under rule 17 as having been elected Sarpanch, up-Sarpanch and Panches. No reply has been submitted on behalf of the Chief Panchayat Officer and the facts, therefore, must be taken to be as stated by the applicant. We have also see the file and it shows that the Returning Officer reported to the Chief Panchayat Officer under rule 17 that Laxminarain had been elected Sarpanch. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Chief Panchayat Officer to notify his name under rule 18 (c ). It was no business of his to convert himself into the election tribunal provided under rule 19, and question the report of the Returning Officer under rule 17. We, therefore, allow the application, and issue a direction to the Chief Panchayat Officer to notify the name of the applicant Laxminarain as Sarpanch of the Panchayat in Sahawa under rule 18 (c) of the Panchayat Election Rules. As no one has appeared to oppose the application we pass no order as to costs. .;