JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition for setting aside an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri, dated 25-10-1956 directing the holding of a fresh election for Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch of Kakatpur Grama Panchayat. 2. The admitted facts are as follows: The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. But his election was challenged before the Sub-divisional Magistrate who purporting to exercise Jurisdiction under Rule 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Rules set it aside by his order dated 25-10-1956 observing that the election was not held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rules 31c to 31 of the said Rules. An objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to hear this dispute under Rule 24 on the ground that the said rule conferred jurisdiction On him to hear disputes arising under the 'preceding rules' and not any dispute arising under the 'succeeding rules'. After the amendment made to the Rules in 1951 detailed provisions for election of Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat were made In Rules 31c to 31j. But the power of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to hear disputes as provided in Rule 24 was not amended. Rules 24 and 31c to 31j-Dispute Sarpanch-Powers of Sub-divisional Rule 24 reads thus: Save as otherwise provided, all disputes under the preceding rules shall be decided by the Sub-divisional Magistrate whose decision shall be final and cannot be caned in question in any proceeding whatsoever. Mr. Das contention is that the words 'preceding rules' in Rule 24 must be given full force and consequently unless there is a dispute regarding election held under the rules which preceded Rule 24 the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear such disputes. Prior to 1951 an election of Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch was also regulated by Rules 8 and 11 of the said Rules and they were undoubtedly rules preceding Rule 24. But consequently in consequence of an amendment made to Section 16 of the Act a new set of rules (Rules 31c to 31j) were inserted succeeding Rule 24. Presumably through oversight subsequent amendment was not made to Rule 24. The result is that there is some sort of anomaly at present. But consequently in consequence of an amendment made to Section 16 of the Act a new set of rules (Rules 31c to 31j) were inserted succeeding Rule 24. Presumably through oversight subsequent amendment was not made to Rule 24. The result is that there is some sort of anomaly at present. Any dispute regarding election to a Grama Panchayat can be heard by the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Rule 24 because the rules dealing with an election to a Grama Panchayat are rules preceding that rule. But any dispute regarding election of Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch cannot be heard by him because the rules providing for such election succeed Rule 24. It is desirable that Rule 24 should be amended so as to confer jurisdiction on the Sub-divisional Magistrate to hear all these election disputes. Consequential amendments should also be made to Rules 8 to 11. 3. But as the rules stand at present, we must hold the contention of Mr. Das that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a dispute in regarding validity of an election of Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch held under Rules 31c to 31j. The order of the Sub-divisional is therefore set aside and the Petitioner shall continue to function as Sarpanch of Kakatpur Grama Panchayat. There will be no order for costs. Das, J. 4. I agree. 5. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed