BAPNA, J.



1. This is an application by Surajmal Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution, and arises la the following circumstances :-



2. In the Tehsil Panchayat of Bassi there are 14 Panchayats duly established under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, (Act No. XXI of 1953). Out of the aforesaid 14 Panchayats, election of 13 Panchayats took place, but the election of the Gram Panchayat, Bassi, which was to be held on 27th February, 1955, was postponed on account of an apprehension of a breach of the peace: and since then neither the election has taken place nor nomination of the Panchas has been done under Section 8 of the Act. Under Sub-section (2)1 of Section 56 of the Act, the members consisting of the Sarpanchayats and Panchas of all the Panchayata in the Tehsil form the electoral college for the election of a Sarpanch and Panchas of the Tehsil Panchayat. The Chief Panchayat Officer directed Sarpanchas and Panchas of all the Panchayats on the 2sth of May, 1955, and appointed Shri Pirthi Singh as the Returning Officer. The petitioner was one of the candidates, and was proposed by Phundilal. His nomination paper was rejected on the ground that in the electoral roll prepared by the Chief Panchayat Officer under Rule 21 of the Panehayat Election Rules 1954 there was one name of Phunda Lal and no name of Phundilal. It was stated before the Returning Officer that Phundilal was the correct name, and he was Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Madhogarh, and his identity could be verified, taut the Returning Officer rejected, the nomination paper of the petitioner, aurajmal has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was prayed that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner be quashed and further a direction be issued to the Returning Officer not to hold, the election of the Tehsil Panchayat of Bassi till the election of the Gram Panchayat of Bassi is completed. Certain other grounds were mentioned in the petition; but only the two points aforesaid were canvassed.



3. Respondent No. 1 was the Returning Officer and respondents Nos. 2 to 14 were the nominated candidates for election of Panchas of the Bassi Tehsil Panchayat. The respondents did not put in appearance, and as the petitioners affidavit has not been controverted, the facts stated by the Petitioner are taken to be correct.



4. It may, however, be pointed out that in matters like this while the Government may not be interested in the result of the election, it would be proper for the Returning Officer, who is a party to the case, to give us his version of the facts, so that the Court may be in a position to know how far the facts stated by the petitioner are correct. Be that as it may, we have to proceed in this case on the assumption that the facts stated in affidavit by the petitioner are correct.



5. There is no doubt that under Section 58, Sub-section (2), the members consisting of the Sarpanchas and Panchas of all the Panchayats in the Tehsil established or deemed to have been established under the Act form an electoral college for the purpose of election of a Sarpanch and Panchas of a Tehsil Panchayat. Under Rule 21 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954, whenever a Tehsil Panchayat has been ordered to be established under Section 58 the Chief Panchayat Officer has to get prepared as early as possible a list of the Panchayats existing in the Tehsil concerned and of the Panchas and Sarpanchas thereof, and that list is to be revised every year. Under Rule 22, when the list referred to above has been prepared, the Chief Panchayat Officer, with the approval of the Government, appoints the Tehsildar to be the Returning Officer for the purposes of the election, and appoints a date for the holding of elections in accordance with the Rules. It is obvious that unless the election of all the Panchayats in the Tehsil is completed, the electoral college is not complete, and in the absence of the completion Of the electoral college, the election of the Sarpanch and Panchas of the Tehsil Panchayat is not contemplated. The direction of the Chief Panchayat Officer for holding the election on the 29th May, 1955, when the election of the Gram Panchayat Bassi had not been completed was thus illegal.



6. On the second question, it was contended for the petitioner that even if the name of Phundilal was not mentioned in the list framed by the Chief Panchayat Officer under Rule 21 the Act permits every person qualified for appointment as a Panch or Sarpanch of a Panchayat to stand for election, and the qualification for the proposer and seconder should not be higher than that required for the candidate. , and, therefore, the Returning Officer should have made an enquiry whether there was any person of the name of Phundilal within the