JUDGMENT V.R. Nevaskar, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other kind of writ or direction for quashing the election of a Kendra Panch or Kendra Panchayat Ujjain from the village Harsodan, and for quashing the order of the returning officer rejecting Petitioner's nomination form contrary to law. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The Petitioner is a resident of the village Harsodan and is a Panch of the Village Panchayat there. The Collector Ujjain, who is opponent No. 3, who was the officer competent to fix the programme for the cooption of Mahila Panch and the election of Sar Panch, Up-Sar Panch and Kendra Panch within the region under his jurisdiction issued a programme for the purpose sometime prior to 6-8-1956. In accordance with the programme thus notified the nomination forms for the election to Kendra Panchayat were to be submitted on 26-8-1956. The nomination forms thus submitted were to be scrutinized the same day. The election to Kendra Panchayat and the declaration of the result of such election was to take place the following day. At the time the programme was thus notified there were six Kendras (centres) in Ujjain District and the village Harsodan was included in Tajapur Kendra. On 6-8-1956 the Collector Ujjain approved the issue of orders of appointment of returning officers for the Gram Panchayat constituencies within his region and for the Gram Panchayat Harsodan Shree Satyanarayan Pathak was chosen. The said officer could not accept the work and by another order dated 14-8-1956 opponent No. 2 Ida Shah was put in his place. It however transpired that on 8-8-1956 a notification was published in the Madhya Bharat Extraordinary Gazette under the authority of the Director Rural Development whereby the then existing six Kendras (centres) in Ujjain District were abolished and they were replaced by only two Kendras. The villages Harsodan and Tajapur which were formerly in Tajapur Kendra now were included in Ujjain Kendra. In spite of this reorganization of the Kendras no modification was made in the election programme and no fresh appointments were made of the returning officers and the election of a Kendra Panch for Kendra Panchayat Ujjain from the village Harsodan was conducted by the opponent Ida Shah in accordance with the programme previously notified. In spite of this reorganization of the Kendras no modification was made in the election programme and no fresh appointments were made of the returning officers and the election of a Kendra Panch for Kendra Panchayat Ujjain from the village Harsodan was conducted by the opponent Ida Shah in accordance with the programme previously notified. The Petitioner as well as opponent No. 1 were the contestants to this office. Nomination forms of both of them were submitted on 26-8-1956. However on scrutiny on that date the returning officer Ida Shah rejected the nomination form of the Petitioner on the grounds that he had mentioned wrong name of the Kendra for which he sought election and that he had not mentioned 'Kendra Panch' as the office for which he had sought election. He had mentioned 'Panch' only. The opponent No. 2 whose form was approved being the only candidate in the field was declared elected as a Kendra Panch. The Petitioner, who was aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination form, submitted an application under Rule 41 of the Rules under Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vidhan, 2006 before the Collector who did not see any force in the objection and consequently dismissed the application. The present petition was then submitted to the Madhya Bharat High Court. It has been transferred for disposal to this Court after the said High Court was abolished under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 in pursuance of the provision contained in that Act. The Petitioner raises the following grounds against the validity of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form of the Petitioner and the consequent declaration of the opponent Ratanlal as the elected Panch for Ujjain Kendra. (1) Ida Shah was not appointed as returning officer for Ujjain Kendra as required by law. He could not therefore have acted as the returning officer. Election proceedings conducted by him are therefore without jurisdiction and are null and void. (2) Even assuming that the said officer was duly appointed his action in rejecting Petitioner's nomination form on the grounds that he had failed to mention Ujjain as the Kendra for which he sought his election as a Panch from the village Harsodan and that he had not mentioned Kendra Panch in his form but mentioned simply Panch was not lawful. It is not disputed before me that the letter similar to Ex. It is not disputed before me that the letter similar to Ex. B and B-1 has been issued initially to Shri Satyanarayan Pathak, a teacher of compulsory Primary School Harsodan and on his failure to appear in time Assistant teacher Munshi Ida Shah of Harsodan was appointed in his place on 14-8-1956 and a similarly worded letter was issued to him. The original letter issued to Idashah is not available. It is also clear and is not seriously disputed that the procedure followed in making the appointment was that Assistant Director Gramodhar formulated initial recommendations for the appointment of returning officers in writing, the copy of which is Ex. 4, the Collector approved the recommendation and directed issue of letters of appointment by appending below the writing his approval and his signature. Similar procedure for replacing any returning officer by another on the failure of the former to take up the work was followed or must have been followed. Mr. Shankar Prasad Bhargava assailed this appointment on the ground that the letters issued to the returning officers Gould not be taken as orders of their appointment as returning officer for the election of a Panch for the Kendra Panchayat. These letters purport to have been issued by the Collector under Rule 24(1) of the Rules under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act and in the operative part of the letter there is no reference to election of a Kendra Panch for Kendra Panchayat. Reference to 'Kendra Panchayat Ke Panch' at the heading of the letter or to Rules 31/32 and amended Rule 33(1) and (2) will not, according to him, justifiably lead to the construction that they are letters of appointment even for election to Kendra Panchayat. What is material, according to the learned Counsel, is the operative part of the letter. It was next contended that when the initial orders of appointment were issued there existed six Kendras in the Ujjain District of which Tajpur was one. An appointment made of Satyanarayan Pathak could only relate to election in respect of Tajpur Kendra. When therefore two days subsequent to these letters of appointment i.e. on 8-8-1950 there was reorganisation of Kendra and the entire District was divided into two Kendras Ujjain and Ghatia there ought to have been a fresh order of appointment for holding election for Ujjain Kendra in place of Tajpur Kendra. When therefore two days subsequent to these letters of appointment i.e. on 8-8-1950 there was reorganisation of Kendra and the entire District was divided into two Kendras Ujjain and Ghatia there ought to have been a fresh order of appointment for holding election for Ujjain Kendra in place of Tajpur Kendra. It was also contended that reference to Tajpur Kendra under these circumstances instead of Ujjain Kendra in the nomination form cannot be said to be material. As regards the validity of grounds for rejection of the nomination form of the Petitioner it was contended that as both the villages Harsodan and Tajpur were included within Ujjain Kendra Panchayat, Tajpur Kendra having been abolished, and as the very returning officer who was appointed for holding election to Tajpur Kendra without any further communication had acted as returning officer of the newly formed Kendra there could therefore possibly have no doubt in his mind that the election was to be for Ujjain Kendra and ought either to have considered the error as immaterial or got it corrected. The mention of 'Panch' in place of 'Kendra Panch' was, it was contended an immaterial error as election as a Panch contemplated then was only as Kendra Panch. On the other hand Mr. Chitale for the opponent Kanhaiyalal contended that Idashah was certainly not a usurper. Since there is no doubt about the fact that he was the person chosen for the office and the authority meant to appoint him. In these circumstances any defect in expression of that will cannot vitiate the acts done bona fide by Idashah in the belief that he was duly appointed. Nor is it open for the Petitioner who took part in the election conducted by the said officer, and took chance of his success, to challenge the validity of appointment after he failed to emerge successful. Mr. Chitale contended that reference to Rules 31/32 and 33(1) and (2) in the second paragraph necessarily implies appointment for purposes referred to in those rules i.e. for election to Kendra Panchayat. The subject-matter of the letter of appointment is also clearly mentioned as 'for Panch of Kendra Panchayat Harsodan'. The letter when read as a whole meant that the appointment was also for holding election to Kendra Panchayat, Kendra Ujjain. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Montreal Street Railway Co. The subject-matter of the letter of appointment is also clearly mentioned as 'for Panch of Kendra Panchayat Harsodan'. The letter when read as a whole meant that the appointment was also for holding election to Kendra Panchayat, Kendra Ujjain. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin 1917 A.C. 170 at 174, Balasubrahmanyan v. Election Tribunal AIR 1954 Mad. 730 and Brij Sunder v. Election Tribunal AIR 1957 Raj. 189 , in support of his contention. Learned Government Advocate also opposed the petition much on the same grounds. He relied upon the observations in Judicial Control of Administrative Action in India (by Markose) pages 358-59 and the decision reported in A.I.R. 1957 SC 397 (412) para. 45 (Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India) and Parameswaran v. State Prosecutor AIR 1931 TC 45. Both the learned Counsel for the opponents contended that the errors in the nomination form did not fall within the category of clerical errors but were errors of substance and it cannot be said that the Election Officer acted contrary to legal requirements. The questions which fall to be considered on these respective submissions of both sides are regarding validity of appointment of Idashah as a Returning Officer including the effect, which reorganisation of Kendras in Ujjain District on 8-8-1956, had upon his appointment, the effect of conduct of the Petitioner in taking part in the proceedings before the said Returning Officer and challenging the appointment only after the rejection of his nomination paper and declaration of opponent No. 1 as a Panch, legal validity of rejection of the nomination form and capability of such rejection being challenged in these proceedings. Now as regards the validity of appointment of Idashah the learned Counsel on either side submitted that the same has to be considered on the basis of annextures B, B-1, 4 and 7. Rules 29(1) and 30 of the Rules made by the Government under Section 116 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vidhan, provide that the area included within each Gram Panchayat, within the limits of a particular Kendra, shall form a circle for election to Kendra Panchayat and for every such circle the Collector shall appoint a Returning Officer and shall notify place, date and time for holding such election. No specific form is prescribed for the appointment of the Returning Officers aforesaid. No specific form is prescribed for the appointment of the Returning Officers aforesaid. All that is necessary is that there should exist an act of the Collector in making the appointment. Now viewed in that light document annexture 4 filed along with the return is material. It has to be conceded that the Collector in these matters could be assisted by appropriate officers under him in making selection of proper persons as Returning Officers. In the instant case Assistant Director Gramodhar prepared a list of all the Gram Panchayats in the Ujjain pargana indicating which Gram Panchayats are included in which of the Bix Kendras in which the District was then divided, and mentioned the names of the persons who may be appointed for particular Gram Panchayat. At the end of the list there was recommendation made in the following terms: A list of names of Teachers to act as Returning Officers for the election of Sar Panch, Up Sar Panch, Kendra Panch for each Gram Panchayat, has been received. The said Teachers may be ordered to be appointed. The Collector below it ordered on 6-8-1956: The orders of appointment be issued (as recommended). It will thus be clear that the appointment of particular teacher as Returning Officer is made by this order and by a similar order passed for replacing any Teacher who did not turn up and the letters in the form annexture B and B-1 issued to the respective Teachers constituted merely an information sent to them for acting in that capacity. It is no doubt true that the Collector did make appointments of various Teachers mentioned in annexture 4 for conducting election of Kendra Panchas. The absence of the word 'Kendra Panch' in the heading of the list was immaterial since the operative part at the end was quite clear. Mr. Shankarprasad also did not make much of the heading. In annexture 4 for the Gram Panchayat Khshetra Harsodan Styanarayan Pathak was appointed on the 6th. He could not turn up in time and he was replaced by the Assistant Teacher of that place by a later order of the Collector and information regarding this was given on 14-8-1956 by the Secretary Panchayat. This fact is not disputed by the Petitioner. In para. He could not turn up in time and he was replaced by the Assistant Teacher of that place by a later order of the Collector and information regarding this was given on 14-8-1956 by the Secretary Panchayat. This fact is not disputed by the Petitioner. In para. 2 of the petition the Petitioner states: Opponent No. 2 who was then a Teacher in the Primary School at Harsodan was appointed by Opponent No. 3 (the Collector District Ujjain) as the Nirvachan Adhikari. It has therefore to be assumed from the entire circumstances that the teacher who replaced Satyanarayan Pathak was expected to perform the same function as had been ordered to be performed under the order in annexture 4 i.e. to conduct elections of Sar Panch, Up Sar Panch of Gram Panchayat and of Kendra Panch. It is not legitimate to accept the contention of the Petitioner that Idashah bad not been appointed to perform the function of Returning Officer for the election of a Kendra Panch from the Harsodan Gram Panchayat constituency. The basis for the last mentioned contention, as discussed earlier, is the defect in the letter which conveyed the information regarding the fact of appointment to the teacher concerned. The actual letter issued to Idashah is not on record but even assuming that it is as defective as annexture B and B-1 still the defect in the first place is not such as to lead to the conclusion that the addressee was not to act as a Returning Officer for the election of a Kendra Panch and in the second place assuming that the expression of intention in the letter was defective in that regard still since the Collector while sanctioning the proposal of the Assistant Director Gramodhar had clearly ordered them to perform that function, the defect in the letter cannot vitiate the actual appointment. Moreover the letter annexture B or B-1 does make a reference at the heading to the subject-matter of the same as 'election of a Kendra Panch' and in the second paragraph of the letter the Returning Officer to whom it is addressed is required to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 33(1), (2) and (3). The rule is for holding election to Kendra Panchayat. The rule is for holding election to Kendra Panchayat. All the Teachers in the Kendra to whom similar letters were addressed understood the letters to include reference to election of a Kendra Panch and actual election did take place in which the Petitioner took part. It is therefore not correct to hold that opponent No. 2 Idashah was not appointed to hold the election of a Kendra Panch for the village Harsodan and the contention of the Petitioner to that effect cannot be accepted. There is another reason why it is not open for the Petitioner to assail the election of opponent No. 1 Kanhaiyalal as a Kendra Panch. It cannot be disputed that the Collector had jurisdiction to order election of a Kendra Panch. He acting under Rule 30 notified the place, date and time for holding such election and appointed Returning Officer. Assuming that the order conveying to the Returning Officer Idashah the information regarding his appointment was not properly expressed, it cannot be doubted that it was he who was the person chosen for performing the work of conducting election. The Petitioner himself acquiesced in his acting as a Returning Officer and took chance of getting himself elected by submitting a nomination form to him. After the rejection of his form and declaration of opponent Kanhaiyalal as an elected Kendra Panch the Petitioner seeks to assail the election of opponent No. 1. It cannot be said that irregularity in the matter of appointment of the returning officer has led to the voters not being able to express their views properly. The returning officer who acted was certainly not a usurper. Under these circumstances the election cannot be set aside on the ground that an irregularity occurred in the matter of appointment of the returning officer nor can a writ of quo-warranto be issued. In a case reported in Bhairulal v. State AIR 1954 Bom. 116 of Bombay a writ of quo-warranto was sought on the ground that the President who was in charge of the election was not entitled to act as President and had therefore no legal authority to conduct the elections. In a case reported in Bhairulal v. State AIR 1954 Bom. 116 of Bombay a writ of quo-warranto was sought on the ground that the President who was in charge of the election was not entitled to act as President and had therefore no legal authority to conduct the elections. Their Lordships Chagla Chief Justice and Dixit J. in the course of the judgment observed that even assuming that the person conducting the election was not the de jure President he was at least de facto President and that the grievance of the Petitioner, in that case, putting it at the highest, was that a person who was elected by the councillors as President discharged the functions under the rules when in law he was not authorised to do so because his election by the Councillors was not a proper and valid election. This was, according to their Lordships at the most an irregularity committed in the course of election which was held under the authority of law and could not be a proper ground for the issue of a writ of quo-warranto. Observations of Chagla Chief Justice who delivered the leading judgment very appropriately express the underlying reason for the view held by them. They are as follows: An election is a luxury which a democracy cannot be expected to indulge in too frequently, and once the people have recorded their votes and expressed their confidence in their representatives, the Court should be loath to interfere with the decision of the people merely because some technicality has not been observed or some irregularity has been committed. The matter would be entirely different if the irregularity has resulted in the people not being able to express their views properly, or if there was any corrupt practice which has materially affected the result of the election. It might have also been different if the election itself was held without any authority of law. But once it is conceded that the Collector had the authority to fix the dates of the general election and the general election took place according to law, any irregularity committed in the course of the election cannot be a ground for the issue of a writ of 'quo-warranto'. But once it is conceded that the Collector had the authority to fix the dates of the general election and the general election took place according to law, any irregularity committed in the course of the election cannot be a ground for the issue of a writ of 'quo-warranto'. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear that it is not open for the Petitioner to assail the declaration of opponent No. 1 as a Kendra Panch from Gram Panchayat at Harsodan, on the ground that Idashah was not legally authorised to hold the aforesaid election. It cannot be disputed that the reorganisation of Kendras took place under a Gazette notification dated 8-8-1956 as required by Section 3(5) of the Panchayat Vidhan and in exercise of the power vested in the Government under Section 3(2). The appointment of Idashah took place on 14-8-1956 i.e. subsequent to the notification aforesaid. The elections took place long after this. The date of filing the nomination forms was 26-8-1956. It can also not be said that any change was necessitated by reason of the reorganisation of Kendras in the election programme or anything legally required to be done in respect of the election. In spite of reorganisation of Kendra the constituency remained unaltered and the only effect of the change was that prior to 8-8-1956 a Kendra Panch elected from Harsodan Gram Panchayat would be a member of Kendra Panchayat at Tajpur. After that date he would be a Kendra Panch of Ujjain Kendra. This change cannot affect the election or the election programme. No irregularity therefore can be said to have occurred as a result of this change. As regards the grounds on which the nomination form of the Petitioner was rejected I should like to observe that since the fact regarding abolition of Tajpur Kendra had been notified in the Government Gazette as required by law on 8-8-1956 it will be presumed that the Petitioner and others placed in similar situation had become aware of the change. The reference to particular Kendra for which the Petitioner wanted to seek election is made essential as disclosed in form No. 2 prescribed for nominations under Rule 32. The reference to particular Kendra for which the Petitioner wanted to seek election is made essential as disclosed in form No. 2 prescribed for nominations under Rule 32. It was therefore a matter of substance and not a mere form and if an error or omission in that respect was considered by the returning officer and by the Collector acting under Section 44 to be material it cannot be said that either of them failed to act within the ambit of their authority. It appears from Rule 32 that the returning officer is required to scrutinise the nomination forms regarding nomination to Kendra Panchayat subject to directions given in Rule 18(1). This rule mentions that a nomination form will not be liable to rejection for clerical errors. Now it is difficult to call an erroneous reference to name of a Kendra for which an election is sought as a mere clerical error. The decisions in Balasubarahmanyan v. Election Tribunal A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 730 and Baldwin v. Ellis (1929) 1 K.B.D. 272, favour this view. Apart from the merits of this question if a returning officer takes this to be a matter not involving merely a clerical error it is difficult to say that such a view could not reasonably have been taken. The rejection of the nomination form therefore cannot be contrary to requirements of law. As this one error could have been considered sufficient it is unnecessary to consider whether the mention of 'panch' as the office in place of 'Kendra Panch' is or is not material. This therefore is not a fit case for the issue of any writ or direction for declaring the election of opponent No. 1 to Kendra Panchayat Ujjain from Harsodan Gram Panchayat invalid on any of the grounds set out in the Petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. The Petitioner shall pay separate set of costs of the petition to the opponents Nos. 1 and 3. Counsel's fees may be taxed at Rs.50 in each case. Petition dismissed