Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Pandit Kalicharan Sharma in connection with a Panchayat election.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Pt. Kalicharan Sharma stood for election to the office of Sarpanch of the Panchayat at Mhow Ibrahimpura and was defeated. THE other two applicants are electors or voters in the constituency for which the Sarpanch was to be elected. THEir case is that seven days clear notice, as required by R. 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, was not given. It is also said that the notification which was published said that the election would take place from 12 noon to 4 p. m. ; but the Returning Officer closed the gates of the school where the election was held at 2 p. m. with the result that many voters, who supported Pt. Kalicharan Sharma could not get into vote Consequently the applicants filed this application with the prayer that the election proceedings should be set aside. No one has appeared on the other side to oppose the application. We are of opinion that Pt. Kalicharan Sharma has a remedy under rules 19 and 20 of the Panchayat Election Rales. Rule 20 was amended in October, 1955 and as it now stands, the election can be set aside on the ground that it was "the outcome of some misconduct or corrupt practice or such irregularity which has substantially influenced the result thereof". In this case the two allegations of the applicants amount, in our opinion, to irregularities committed by the Returning Officer. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that even though an election petition may be possible, this Court can and should interfere in the circumstances of this case. In this connection reliance was placed on Prabhudayal vs. Chief Panchayat Officer, Jaipur (1) to which one of us was a party. In that case it was held that rule 19 contemplates an election petition against individual Panchas and that where the application is for declaring the whole election void, rule 19 does not apply. The present case, in our opinion, is different because in this case there was only the election of the Sarpanch on that date and the applicants want that election of the individual Sarpanch to be set aside. Rule 19 clearly provides for an election petition for setting aside the election of an individual Sarpanch. In these circumstances, the applicants, cannot take advantage of the decision in 'prabhudayal's case (l) in the circumstances of this case. Here it is the election of an individual Sarpanch which is being challenged and such an election can be challenged by a defeated candidate under rule 19. In the second place it is urged that even though Pt. Kalicharan might be able to challenge the election as a defeated candidate under rule 19, the other two applicants, who are voters in that constituency, could not because that rule requires an election petition by at least 10 qualified electors. It is therefore urged that a single elector can always file a writ petition in this Court for setting aside the election of a Panch or Sarpanch or Upsarpanch because rule 19 does not allow him to make such an application before the Election Tribunal. It is true that a single elector cannot make an application under rule 19 before the Election Tribunal. But the policy of the legislature in Rajasthan apparently is that a single elector should not be able to challenge the validity of an election and that at least ten electors should join together before the validity of an election can be challenged by them. It seem to us that in the circumstances, it would be improper for us to permit one elector to challenge the validity of the election by a writ petition in this Court. We would then be allowing him to do something which the legislature has obviously not permitted. We may in this connection refer to Milakhraj vs. Jagdish Chandra (2 ). That case was with reference to the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (Act No. XXIII of 1951 ). There also sec. 19 of the Act provided that any ten persons qualified to vote at the election would be entitled to make an election petition. It was held that in the face of that provision, it would be improper for any one elector to come to this Court to challenge an election. We respectfully agree with the view expressed therein and the reasons given in that case. Therefore, so far as Har-chand and Khilonaram applicants are concerned, they cannot ask us to set aside the election of the Sarpanch because they are only two and at least ten electors are required before an election can be set aside and if ten people are prepared to join with them, they have their remedy also under rule 19. Lastly, it was urged that rule 20 does not contemplate an irregularity by the Election Officer as the basis of challenge in an election petition. Our attention in this connection is drawn to Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (3) to which also, one of us happened to be a party. That was a decision based on rule 20 as it stood before the amendment of October, 1955. At that time, the words "or such irregularity" did not appear in rule 20. Learned counsel however urges that in view of the reasoning given in that case, the addition of the words "or such irregularity" makes no difference and we should hold in accordance with the decision in Chandra's case that the "irregularity" must also be of the candidate. It is enough to say that that case cannot be binding authority so far as the decision of this question is concerned because that judgment was given when the words "or such irregularity" did not appear in the law. It is true that it was said in that case that "corrupt practice or misconduct"contemplated by rule 20 must be of the candidate and not of the Returning Officer. But when the words "such irregularity" have been added in rule 20, we have to see whether irregularity, which is also a basis of an election petition since the amendment of October 1955, is meant to be some irregularity committed by the candidate. It is enough to say that so far as our knowledge of election law goes, the words "corrupt practice and misconduct" are generally used with reference to candidates while the word "irregularity" is generally used with reference to the mistakes committed by the Returning Officer during the course of election. Therefore, when these words were introduced in rule 20 by the amendment of October, 1955, we must give them the usual meaning which is given to the word "irregularity" when used in connection with election proceedings. As the rule now stands, it refers to three things, namely "corrupt practice," "misconduct" and "irregularity". It may be that the wording of the rule is not very happy. But we have no doubt that when these three words are used in the rule 'corrupt practice or misconduct' must refer to the candidate, while 'irregularity' must refer to the Returning Officer. We are therefore of opinion that as rule 20 now stands after the amendment of October 1955, the words "misconduct and corrupt practice" used therein refer to the misconduct and corrupt practice of the candidate while the words "irregularity" used therein refers to the irregularities committed by the Returning Officer or by other officers in connection with the elections. The decision, therefore, given in Chandra's case before the words "such irregularity" appeared in the rule is no guide to its interpretation now that these words also appear therein. We are therefore of opinion that it is open to a defeated candidate to file an election petition in case there is such an irregularity by the Returning Officer as may have affected the result of the election. Under the circumstances, it was open to Pt. Kalicharan who was a defeated candidate to make an election petition in this case. It only now remains to consider the last point, namely that the Chief Panchayat Officer has not yet notified the result of the election as provided by rule 18 (c) of the Rules and, therefore, the applicant is not in a position to file an election petition as it is to be filed within 15 days of the notification of the result. We are of opinion that in view of this defect pointed out by the applicant, the proper remedy to give him is to issue a writ of mandamus to the Chief Panchayat Officer to publish the result of election as required by rule 18 (c) and thereafter it will be open to Pt. Kalicharan Sharma to file an election petition under rules 19 and 20. In his prayer the application says that the Chief Panchayat Officer be restrained from publishing the result. That prayer was, in our opinion, misconceived. He is entitled to an order from us directing the Chief Panchayat Officer to publish the result so that he may take advantage of rules 19 and 20 and file his election petition. We therefore allow the application in part and direct the Chief Panchayat Officer to publish the result of the election of Sarpanch of Panchayat Mhow Ibrahimpura within a month of this order. The rest of the application fails and it is hereby dismissed. As no one has appeared to contest it, we pass no order as to costs. . ;