Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was elected as a member from ward No. 3 of the Kuravilangad Panchayat at the election held on 17.6.1953 under the Travancore Cochin Panchayat Act, 1950. The first respondent filed a petition to set aside the election as Election Petition No.1 of 1953 of the court of the District Munsiff, Ettumanoor, and the Election Commissioner held: "In the result I hereby declare the election of the counter-petitioner to be void. The petitioner will realise the costs of this petition and advocate's fee Rs. 25/- (Twenty-five) from the counter-petitioner. Interest on costs, 3 % ". 2. The petitioner invokes Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution and challenges the validity of the order of the Election Commissioner above mentioned. 3. According to R.72(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules 1951, no election held under the Act of a member of a Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Rules and R.73(3) which occurs in the said Part provides: "A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates who were duly nominated at the election other than himself if he was so nominated". Apart from the petitioner and the first respondent another person also was duly nominated as a candidate for election from Ward No. 3 and he was not impleaded in Election Petition No.1 of 1953. Apparently the learned Election Commissioner either missed this fact or the provisions contained in R.72(1) and R.73(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951. 4. The "corrupt practice" alleged and found and which forms the foundation of the order impugned, is the carrying of certain agents of the petitioner to the polling booth in motor cars belonging to him. That this is not a "corrupt practice" will be clear from the portion underlined by us in the extract from R.82(6) which defined the "corrupt practice" concerned. "The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent for the conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling Station". 5. "The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent for the conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling Station". 5. The only other ground on which the election has been avoided is an illegal practice as defined in R.82B(2): "The issuing of any circular, placard or poster having a reference to the election which does not bear on its face the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof". For such an illegal practice to avoid the election of a returned candidate, it should also be established, as provided in R.78(2)(A) that the election "has been procured or induced, or the result of the election has been materially affected" by the said illegal practice. There is neither proof nor finding that the illegal practice (apart from the "corrupt practice") mistakenly held to have been committed had any such result. 6. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the Election Commissioner in Election Petition No. I of 1953 has to be quashed and we order accordingly. 7. There was no appearance for the respondents and Mr. Rama Shenoi, at our request, acted as amicus curiae. We record, our appreciation of his services. Allowed.