Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Shambhu Singh under Art. 226 of the Constitution against Rajasthan State, the Chief Panchayat Officer, Rajasthan State, and Shri Ramaram in connection with the election of Shri Ramaram as Surpanch of Garnia Panchayat. We may mention that none of the opposite party has appeared to oppose this application.
(2.) THE facts alleged by the applicant briefly are these : THE election for the Gram Panchayat was held on 5th of March, 1955. Two candidates stood for election for the office of Surpanch, namely Jiwan Singh and Ramaram. An objection was raised against the nomination of Ramaram and it was that Ramaram was not qualified as required by sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. It is said that the officer holding the election did not decide this objection and still proceeded to take votes. THE objectors, however, it is said, abstained from voting. Shri Ramaram thus secured more votes than the other candidates; but the officer conducting the election did not declare the result of the election to the office of Sarpanch as there was a protest against his not deciding the objection THE matter was taken to the Deputy Minister, Local Self Government and those who approached him were informed by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Local Self Government Department that as Shri Ramaram had not been declared elected as Sarpanch no further action was called for. 1 hereafter, dates were fixed for holding fresh election to the office of Sarpanch. THEse dates were postponed from time to time till eventually in August, 1956, the Chief Panchayat Officer passed an order to the effect that as voting had taken place and Shri Ramaram had secured a majority of votes he was duly elected as Sarpanch. Consequently, the present application was made to this Court. The main contention of the applicant is that it is the duty of the officer holding the election to decide an objection raised under rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954, then and there and to proceed further only after deciding it and that he had no right to hold the election without deciding the election. We are of opinion that this submission is correct. Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act lay3 down among other qualification that a Sarpanch should be able to read and write Hindi. The objection that was raised against Shri Ramaram was that he was not able to read and write Hindi and was, therefore, not qualified to stand for the election of Sarpanch. Rule 8 of the Panchayat Election Rules provides for the decision of the objection. It lays down that "if any person has any objection regarding any elector or proposed candidate the Returning Officer shall after hearing both the parties, then and there determine it. " There is further provision that the Returning Officer should record a precise account of the objection and the decision thereon. Then follows Rule 9 (1) which is as follows : The Returning Officer shall then announce at the polling station the names of candidates declared by him to have been validly nominated for election. " Thereafter, votes have to be taken and further proceedings for the election follow. It is obvious, therefore, that a decision of an objection under Rule 8 is essential before a list of validly nominated candidates can be prepared. If the Returning Officer does not decide the objection as to whether a candidate is qualified to stand for the election he cannot prepare a list of validly nominated candidates and cannot proceed further to hold the election. The contention of the applicant in this case is that an objection was taken that Shri Ramaram was not qualified to stand for the election of Sarpanch as he was not able to read and write Hindi. That objection was not decided and still the Returning Officer proceeded to hold the election and count votes. There is no contradiction of this allegation made in the affidavit filed by the applicant and we must take it as correct. Its correctness is further strengthened by the fact that fresh election was ordered to be held more than once though eventually the Chief Panchayat Officer decided that Shri Ramaram should be permitted to hold the office of Sarpanch. The conclusion, therefore, to which we come is that an objection as to the qualification of Ramaram to stand for the election as Sarpanch was raised, This objection should have been decided under Rule 8 before further proceedings relating to that election were taken. We may point out that it should not have been difficult to decide this matter then and there for Ramaram. could have been asked to read some book or take down some dictation. The Returning Officer, however, did not decide the objection and proceeded to hold the election. Further proceedings, therefore, were invalid as it was not possible to have a list of validly nominated candidates for the office of Surpanch under rule 9 (1) without first deciding this objection. We are, therefore, of opinion that the election of Ramaram as Surpanch is invalid and must be set aside and a fresh election held according to law and rules. We therefore, allow the application, set aside the election of Shri Ramaram to the office of Surpanch of the Garnia Panchayat and order that a fresh election according to law be held. As no one has appeared to oppose this application we pass no order as to costs. .;