ORDER G.P. Bhutt, J This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Kotval J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 116 of 1956. The Appellant was elected as one of the members of the Ratanpur Gram Panchayat on 22-12-1955. 12 other members, Respondents 5 to 16, were also elected as members at that time. The election of the members was notified on 16-1-1956. Thereafter the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice for a meeting of the members to be held on 29-1-1956 for election of the Sarpanch. The election was stayed by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter another notice was issued by the Secretary for a meeting to be held on 17-3-1956 for the same purpose. The petition, out of which this appeal arises, was presented on 7-3-1956 on which date the election of the Sarpanch was stayed by the order of this Court. Subsequently that order was discharged but no further meeting has been held till now for election of the Sarpanch. The Appellant alleged that no meeting for election of the Sarpanch could lawfully be held on 17-3-1956 as the time for his election prescribed by Rule 6, Clause XA, of the C.P. and Berar Panchayat Rules, 1948, elapsed after 30 days from the date of the publication of the election of the members of the Gram Panchayat. Laxminarayan, who is Respondent No. 16, however, claimed to have been duly elected as Sarpanch in the meeting of 29-1-1956. The Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No. 1, has submitted that no election took place on that date as he had stayed the proceedings. The question whether Laxminarayan was elected as Sarpanch is, therefore, a matter of contest and it is for him, if he is duly elected, to move this Court for declaration of his status as Sarpanch. That part of the case, therefore, does not arise in the present proceedings. The question is whether the election of the members of the Gram Panchayat is invalid on the grounds raised by the Appellant in his petition. Those grounds are set out by the learned single Judge in para. 4 of his order. The case of the Appellant really hinges upon the question whether the electoral roll was duly published in accordance with Rule 2, Clause IX, of the C.P. and Berar Panchayat Rules. Those grounds are set out by the learned single Judge in para. 4 of his order. The case of the Appellant really hinges upon the question whether the electoral roll was duly published in accordance with Rule 2, Clause IX, of the C.P. and Berar Panchayat Rules. If the publication was invalid, the question whether some of the persons were wrongly included as voters in the electoral roll will not arise. On the other hand, if the electoral roll was duh published, the only remedy open under the rules was to challenge inclusion of their names as voters, and as that was not done, the electoral roll would not be open to challenge. Rule 2, Clause IX of the C.P. and Berar Panchayat Rules, lays down that a copy of the electoral roll shall be kept for inspection in a conspicuous place such as chaodi or gadi in the ward to which the electoral roll pertains. It is contended that this rule was breached as the electoral roll was kept at Karhaiyapara school in only one ward. It is, however, evident that the places mentioned in Rule 2 are only illustrative and where there is no chaodi or gadi, as in the present case the keeping of the electoral roll at any other place would not amount to a breach of the rule. The only question is whether the omission to keep the electoral roll in other wards is a material defect affecting its validity. In our opinion, this rule is only directory and not mandatory and in the absence of any proof that the persons affected by the electoral roll did not have notice thereof, the validity of the electoral roll cannot be the subject of contest in writ proceedings. There is also one more fact to be noticed. The Petitioner himself had made use of the electoral roll and contested the election. He, however, seeks to challenge only the election of other members. Apart from the question whether the election of all the members would have to be declared to be invalid if his contention succeeds, it does not appear proper for a person who has successfully made use of the machinery of election to come up in writ petition against the election of other members. The learned single Judge was also right in holding that the petition was unduly delayed. The learned single Judge was also right in holding that the petition was unduly delayed. If the Petitioner had any genuine grievance against the election of the other members, he should not have waited for about 2 months to come up before this Court. In the result the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any costs. The outstanding amount of the security shall be refunded to the Appellant. Appeal dismissed.