Judgment :- 1. The petitioner's contention that his nomination was improperly rejected and that the election of the 1st respondent as a member of the Payippad Panchayat at the election held on 15.5.1953 should be set aside was rejected by the 2nd respondent, the Election Commissioner who heard and disposed of his Election Petition, No.1 of 1953. The petitioner's nomination was accepted by the Election Officer but was rejected by the Tahsildar, Chenganachery on an appeal by the 1st respondent on the ground that he was disqualified under S.13(2)(g) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950. 2. Under S.13(2)(g) of the said Act a person is disqualified for election or appointment as a member of a Panchayat if such person is at the date of election or appointment "in arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity) to the Panchayat up to and inclusive of the previous year in respect of which a bill or notice has been duly served upon him and the time, if any, specified therein for payment, has expired". The Election Commissioner found that a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act (of which Ext. II dated 23.12.1952 is an attested copy) was served on the petitioner. What is contemplated by S.13(2)(g) is a bill or notice that is valid in law and before the Revenue Recovery Act can be invoked certain proceedings under the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951, have first to be exhausted. 3. R. 132 provides: "If any rate, tax, cess or fee due from any company or person is not paid, the Executive Authority shall cause a notice to be served on such company or person to pay it within fifteen days of the date of such service". and there is no evidence in the case to show that any notice under R. 132 has been issued to the petitioner. As a matter of fact the evidence of P.W. 2 the President of the Panchayat, who is admitted to have been the Executive Authority during the relevant period, is to the effect that no such notice has been issued by him. 4. As a matter of fact the evidence of P.W. 2 the President of the Panchayat, who is admitted to have been the Executive Authority during the relevant period, is to the effect that no such notice has been issued by him. 4. The prayer in the petition as can be seen from paragraph 19 of the petitioner's affidavit is only to the effect: "That the order dated 25.3.1955 of the second respondent be quashed by a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or direction of this Hon'ble Court and proper disposal of the Election Petition directed according to law". In view of this the only order that we can pass is to quash the order in Election Petition No.1 of 1955 and direct a fresh disposal according to law. It is agreed by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the 1st respondent that we may do so. It is also agreed that the only fresh evidence that need be allowed on behalf of the parties is such documentary evidence as they deem fit to produce within a fortnight after the first posting of the petition by the Election Commissioner. 5. There is doubt that the disposal of the Election Petition should be expedited and we have no doubt the 2nd respondent will do so. 6. The petition will stand allowed to the extent indicated above but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Allowed.