JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution by one Mahendra Singh against an order of the Civil Judge, Alwar, acting as a Tribunal under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act 1959, setting aside his election to the office of Pradhan. The petition has been contested by Khem Chand, Jarnura Ram and Udam Singh on whose election petitions the election of the petitioner was set aside.
(2.) THE petitioner is a registered elector in village Badli-ki-Dhani within Panchayat circle Ramod, the whole of which is included in Mandawar block. He is also registered as an elector in village Bhamora in Panchayat circle Bhamora the whole of which is included in Kishangarh block. THE petitioner was holding the office of Sarpanch of Bhamora Panchayat when he was elected to the office of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Mandawar. He tendered his resignation from the office of Sarpanch after his election which was accepted on 5. 2. 65. Under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act 1959 a person is eligible to be elected as Pradhan if he is a voter of any Panchayat, is a resident of the block and is able to read and write Hindi. This is however subject to the provisions of Sec. 15, which enumerates the disqualifications for becoming a member of the Panchayat Samiti or a Pradhan of it. Clause (k) of this section lays down that a person is disqualified to be elected as a Pradhan if he is disqualified for election as a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch or a Panch of a Panchayat. Sec. 11 of the Panchayat Act lays down that every person who is entitled to vote at an election in a Panchayat circle or a ward thereof shall be qualified lor election as a Panch unless he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of it. Sec. 12 of that Act provides that no person shall hold office in more than one Panchayat. Section 13 prescribes (hat every Panchayat shall have a Sarpanch who must be a person qualified to be elected as a Panch and able to read and write Hindi. The Tribunal has held that Mahendra Singh was disqualified to be elected as Pradhan in view of sec.- 15 (k) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act 1959 read with sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953 as he was Sarpanch of Bhamora Panchayat which was not in Mandawar block on the date of his election as Pradhan. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act does not lay down any disqualification. It it argued that a person holding an office in one Panchayat can stand for election to an office in another Panchayat and his nomination paper cannot be rejected under rule 18 nor his election set aside under rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960. My attention was drawn to the provisions of secs. 67a, 68, 69 and 70 of the Representation of the People Act 195) and it was contended that it was open to the petitioner to resign either the office of Sarpanch of Bhamora Panchayat after his election or the office of Pradhan. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am unable to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion not only sec. 11 but sec. 12 and 13 also contain disqualifications for election to offices under a Panchayat. Sec. 12 lays down that no person shall hold an office in more than one Panchayat. That means that a person already holding one office in a Panchayat is disqualified from standing as a candidate for another office in another Panchayat. Sec. 13 lays down that a person unable to read and write Hindi is disqualified from standing as a candidate for the office of Sarpanch. If a person already holds an office of Panch or Sarpanch in one Panchayat then his nomination paper can be rejected under rule 18 (3) (a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 on the ground that he is not qualified for election to the office of Panch or Sarpanch of another Panchayat. If he has already been elected to another office in a Panchayat then his election can be set aside under rule 78 (a) on the ground that on the date of election he was not qualified to be a candidate for such an election. Any other interpretation would render sec. 12 of the Panchayat Act nugatory. The Rajasthan Panchayat Act does not contain any provision similar to that contained in secs. 67a, 68, 69 and 70 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 except in a case where a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Panchayat in the Block is elected as Pradhan. Sec. 12 (5) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act provides that if an Up-Sarpanch of the Panchayat within the Block is elected as Pradhan he shall cease to be Up-Sarpanch of the Panchayat and sec. 12 (5a) lays down that if the Sarpanch of the Panchayat within the Block is elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti he shall continue to hold both the offices simultaneously. In the latter case he shall not work as Sarpanch but shall nominally hold that office. As the petitioner was the Sarpanch of a Panchayat outside the Block he was disqualified for standing as a candidate for the office of Pradhan of Mandawar Block. I am accordingly of the opinion that the election of the petitioner to the office of Pradhan was rightly set aside. I therefore dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition. . ;