Sarjoo Prosad, C. J. - (1.) THESE applications have been made for recalling a writ issued by this Court on the 26th of October, 1959. One of the petitions is on behalf of the members of the Panchayat and the other on behalf of the Chairman. It related to the setting aside of an election of Gram Panchayat Jhajhoo on the ground that the election was void and that the members of the Panchayat or the Sarpanch could not function as such. There were several points taken in support of the petition to which the Sarpanch or the Gram Panchayat as also the Government which held the election were impleaded as respondents. It was stated that there was violation of Rules 3 & 4 of the Panchayat Rules which were both mandatory. Rule 3 requires that the Chief Panchayat Officer shall fix a date for holding the election and the Collector had no authority to do so, and that the notices required to be served under Rule 4, which as it then stood, had to be served at least seven days before the date of election, were not so served. It was stated that one or the places on which the notice in question had to be served was Mokha Palliwallan and there it had been served as late as the 24th of March, 1958, which was the date of the election itself. It was, therefore,, submitted that Rule 4, which has been repeatedly held to be mandatory by this Court, had been clearly infringed. In my order dated the 26th of October, 1959, I held that there was a clear violation of Rule 4 of the Rules and the election had to be set aside. I accordingly made the rule nisi absolute and confirmed the writ. So far as the violation of Rule 3 was concerned, I did not come to any finding on that point.
(2.) MR. Acharya in these applications for recalling the writ has urged two points in his support. He contends that the members of the Panchayat, who have now presented one of the petitions, were not impleaded as parties to the previous application. According to him, they were necessary parties, and in their absence, it could not be held that the election was void because they were also affected by that order. His second contention is chat Mokha Palliwallan was not one of the group of villages which constituted the Panchayat and therefore any service of notice on the village in question was unnecessary; and even assuming that a notice on that village was served on the 24th of March, 1958, that would not amount to any violation of Rule 4 so as to vitiate the election. Oh the last occasion unfortunately no one appeared on behalf of the Sarpanch. The learned Deputy Government Advocate appeared for the State. He submits that it was only at the last stage that the Government decided to contest the petition for writ and therefore he did not have the advantage of ascertaining all the facts bearing on the points involved. I have listened to elaborate arguments addressed on behalf of the parties on the points raised by Mr. Acharya. So far as the first question is concerned, there can be no doubt that the members of the Panchayat were also affected by the writ in question. The effect of the writ is to declare the election void, and, as such, they should have been made parties to the application which was originally filed by the petitioner. It is, however, submitted on behalf of Moolchand, the respondent in these case that he did not necessarily want that the whole election should be set aside but that he wanted the election of the Sarpanch to be set aside and the Sarpanch was impleaded as a party to the application. He also submits that the State of Rajasthan which was responsible for holding the election, was also made a party to the application and that such an application was fully competent. It is true that having regard to his prayers, it was not necessary to implead the other members of the Panchayat as parties to his application, but the rule was made absolute on the ground that the entire election was void for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 4; and in that event it was appropriate that the Panches also should have been impleaded as parties and heard before the rule could be made absolute by this Court. But now I have listened to all the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties by Mr. Acharya and if I find that no adequate ground has been made out for recalling the writ, I see no reason to interfere on the application made by the petitioners. I, therefore, come back to the second point raised by Mr. Acharya, namely whether there was, or was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 4. If actually Mokha Palliwallan was not one of the units which constituted the Panchayat in question, then undoubtedly any service of notice on that unit was unnecessary and no complaint could be made on that account that there was no compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules. But having examined the position fully, it seems to me that Mokha Palli-wallan is but a part of village Mokha which was one of the units which went to constitute the Panchayat of Jhajhoo and the Returning Officer wanted that notices should be served on this Bass, or part of the village also. The Government Notification issued in the Gazette under Section 3 of the Act shows that a Panchayat had to be established consisting of a group of about eleven villages including Mokha Charnan and Mokha. Now- Ex. 3 which appears to be the notice issued by the Chief Panchayat Officer dividing the Pancha-yat Circle into a number of Wards convenient for the purpose of election and fixing the number of Panches from each such Ward, indicates that Mokha Charnan, Mokha Gopalan and Sailaan were lumped together as a Ward to elect one member to the Panchayat. It is significant that the name of village Mokha does not appear but only Mokha Gopalan is mentioned. On the affidavits filed by the. respondent in these applications and the petition in the earlier case, it appears that there are two Bassas in village Mokha, one of those Bassas being Mokha Palliwallan and Ex. 6 shows that notice of Mokha Palliwallan was actually served on the 24th of March, 1958, which was the date of the election. If the Returning Officer decided, as it appears he did in this case,-and perhaps in the circumstances it was a proper decision,-that notices on both the Bassas should be served, then surely the service of notice on the 24th of March, 1958, on Mokha Palliwallan was not an appropriate compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules and therefore there was an adequate basis for holding that the mandate of Rule 4 had been clearly infringed. In the circumstances, I think it would be unnecessary to recall the writ and to hear the matter afresh in the presence of the parties when all the parties have had full scope for making their submissions on the various questions in connection with the writ issued by the Court. I am satisfied that the writ was properly issued and it is not necessary to recall the same. It may be also pointed-out here that there was an infringement of Rule 3 as well which required that the date of election should be fixed by the Chief Panchayat Officer, and not by the Collector, as it was done in this case. It is very necessary that these wholesome rules for conducting elections should be strictly followed and the officers-in-charge of these elections must not ignore or act in violation of these rules. The applications, therefore, fail and must be rejected, though in the circumstances, I think the parties should bear their own costs. .;