Bapna, J. - (1.) UNDER orders of the Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan, the election of the Tehsil Panchayat, Aklera was to take place on 2nd August, 1957. The Tehsildar of Aklera was the Returning Officer and the elections were held under his direction on the aforesaid date. Bherulal petitioner No. 1 was elected Sarpanch, Madanlal petitioner No. 2 was elected Up-Sarpanch, Danmal, Kalyan, Mangilal, Shamsaj Beg, Mangilal II and Noor Mohamad petitioners were elected Panchas. Their names were notified in the Rajasthan Raj Patra of 12. 12. 57, by the Chief Panchayat Officer in compliance with R. 18 (c) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules. Respondent No. 1 Jagan Nath filed an election petition to the Collector of Jhalawar against Bherulal challenging his election as Sarpanch. According to the allegations in his petition Jagan Nath contended that the elections should not have been held on 2nd August, 1957 because an order had been passed by the Chief Panchayat Officer to postpone the elections till 15th October, 1957. He also contended that the Returning Officer had made use of the ballot papers contrary to the rules. The petition was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that the order of postponement passed by the Chief Panchayat Officer reached the Returning Officer on 4th August, 1957 after the elections had taken place. He was of opinion that the ballot papers had been rightly used. Certain other objections were raised before him which he rejected. He sent his report to the Collector. The Collector declared the entire elections held on 2nd August, 1957 to be invalid on the ground that an order had been passed by the Chief Panchayat Officer on 2nd August, 1957 for postponement of the elections although the said order reached the Returning Officer only on 4th August, 1957.
(2.) THE petitioners have come to this Court and it is alleged on their behalf that the Collector was wrong in setting aside the entire elections when the election petition was filed only against Bherulal. It was also contended that the elections had taken place prior to the receipt of the order of postponement passed by the Chief Panchayat Officer and therefore the elections cannot be said to be invalid. THE petitioners also challenged the power of the Chief Panchayat Officer to direct postponement of the election. THE chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan, the Collector, Jhalawar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aklera and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kotah were also made parties to the respondents but none of the respondents have filed any reply. There is no doubt that under R. 3 the Chief Panchayat Officer has power to fix a date for holding the election. It may be that under sec. 14 of the General Clauses Act this power to fix a date be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. But this does not mean that he can postpone the date of election for no reasons whatsoever. Again in the present case he only postponed the election but did not fix any new date for holding the election. This he was not authorised to do. When the Chief Panchayat Officer once fixes a date certain consequences follow : - The Returning Officer has to take certain steps and the persons interested in the election have to canvass and to do all things which would consistently with law improve their chances for election. R. 5 authorises the Returning Officer to postpone the election to a later date in case he has reason to believe that there is likelihood of a breach of peace or of a riot or affray in continuing proceedings of the election on the date originally fixed. There may arise occasions when the Chief Panchayat Officer may have to fix a new date, as for example, when the Returning Officer is unable to perform his duties on the due date. But such occasions would be rare and the fixing of the new date may be justified as being within the four corners of sec. 14 of the General Clauses Act. All that has been brought out in the present case is that for some unknown reasons the Chief Panchayat Officer on one fine morning, that is, 2nd August, 1957 sent a telegram to the Collector of Jhalawar that the elections be postponed and the Collector in turn sent a telegram to the Returning Officer (the Tehsildar of Aklera) on 4th August, 1958, "please postpone Tehsil Panchayat Election till 15th October,1957". No reasons have been given why the elections were postponed and when they were to be actually held. The expression postponing the Elections till 15th October, 1957, does not mean that the elections ate to be held on that date. The Chief Panchayat Officer, therefore, acted without jurisdiction in postponing the elections. In the present case the Chief Panchayat Officer published the result of the elections as required by R. 18 (c) in the Gazette of 12th October, 1957 by notification of 31st October, 1957. This notification by the Chief Panchayat Officer amounted to an implied cancellation of his order for postponing the elections. The decision of the Collector of the election petition of Jagan Nath is erroneous and is set aside. So far as the election of Madanlal, Danmal, Kalyan, Mangilal, Shamsaj Beg, Mangilal II and Noor Mohamad are concerned, there were no election petitioner before him and he was only concerned to find whether the election of Bherulal could be set aside on the grounds mentioned by Jagan Nath. It may be mentioned that in the prayer portion of the application of Jagan Nath the validity of the election of Up-Sarpanch, namely, Madanlal is also challenged. But Madanlal was not made a party to the application and, therefore, his election could not also be challenged. The learned Collector in his final order has mentioned that he has only applied his mind to the objection of holding the elections after they had been postponed by the Chief Panchayat Officer and that he did not consider it necessary to go into other minor points raised in the application of Jagan Nath. Since the view taken by him has been found to be erroneous, the order of the Collector Jhalawar dated 15th July, 1958 is set aside. He will, however, proceed now to deal with the other points raised by Jagan Nath and to decide the election application on the merits. The petitioner Bherulal will get his costs of this Court from Jagan Nath respondent. .;