JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by two electors of the Lachhmangarh Municipality. The petition was originally filed on 9.5.61 for a direction to the Returning Officer and the Collector not to hold the election of the Municipal Board fixed for 14.5.61 without rectifying the fundamental defects pointed out in the petition. One of the defects pointed out by the petitioners was that no notice under sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been published. An interim order was passed on 11.5.61 by this Court restraining the Collector and the Returning Officer from holding the election until a notification fixing the date of election as contemplated by sec. 23 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette. 2. A notification under sec. 23 was published on 11.5.61. The election was then held on 14.5.61. The petitioners were thereafter permitted to amend the petition. The elected and co-opted members were impleaded as respondents and their election and co-option have been challenged on account of certain fundamental defects. The petition was contested on behalf of the elected and co-opted members. 3. The first ground taken by the petitioners is that the election and co-option are vitiated on account of the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in sec. 14(2) and (3). 4. Sec 13(1) provide that a municipality shall be divided into as many wards as there are general seats fixed for the board under sec. 9(2). Sec. 13(2) lays down that the representation of each ward shall be on the basis of population of that ward and shall, as far as possible, be in the same proportion as the total number of seats for the municipality bear to its population. Sec. 14 runs as follows :— "Delimitation order.—(1) The State Government shall by order determine— (a) the wards in which each municipality shall be divided for purpose of elections to the board; (b) the extent of each ward; and (c) the number of seats, if any, reserved for members of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, as the case may be, in any ward. (2) The draft of the order under subsec. (1) shall be published for filing objections thereto within a period of not less than one month and a copy of the same shall be sent to the board concerned for comments. (2) The draft of the order under subsec. (1) shall be published for filing objections thereto within a period of not less than one month and a copy of the same shall be sent to the board concerned for comments. (3) The State Government shall consider any objection and the comments received under sub-sec. (2) and the draft order shall, if necessary, be amended, altered or modified accordingly, and thereupon it shall become final." 5. The draft of the order under sec. 14(1) was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 10.6.60 and objections were invited by the following notification:– ^^t;iqj] ebZ 20] 1960** la[;k ,Q- 1¼98½ ,y-,l-th-A 60&tSlk fd jktLFkku E;qfuflisfyVht ,DV] 1959 ¼,DV la- 38 lu~ 1959½ dh /kkjk 14 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ }kjk visf{kr gS] jkT; ljdkj mä /kkjk dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tks vkKk ikfjr djus dk fopkj j[krh gS mldk fuEufyf[kr izk:i] jktdh; xtV esa mlh izdkku dh rkjh[k ls ,d eghus dh vof/k ds Hkhrj mä vkKk ds fo"k; esa] vkifÙk;k¡ nk;j fd;s tkus ds gsrq ,rn~}kjk izdkfkr fd;k tkrk gSA jkT; ljdkj mi;qZä vof/k dh lekfIr ds iwoZ fdlh Hkh O;fä ls izkIr gqbZ vkifÙk ij fopkj djsxhA ,slh vkifÙk;k¡ fyf[kr :i esa lEcfU/kr dyDVj ds tfj;s jkT; ljdkj dks Hksth tkuh pkfg;sA 6. This notification was not in accordance with sec. 14(2) inasmuch as clear one months time was not given for filing objections. The notification required objections to be filed within one month of the date of its publication whereas sec. 14(2) provides that a period of "not less than one month" shall be given for filing objections. 7. A number of electors of the Municipality including one Vanktesh Pareek filed an objection before the Collector on 11.7.60 at 9-30 A. M. That objection was not considered by the State Government on the ground that it had been filed beyond the time fixed in the notification issued under sec. 14(2) inviting objections. This fact appears from the relevant file of the Government of Rajasthan which was requisitioned by this Court. The objection made by the electors against the proposed delimitation was that unequal wards with unnatural boundaries had been deliberately formed with ulterior motives. 8. It will thus be seen that there was a violation of sec. 14(2) inasmuch as clear one month was not allowed for filing objections and there was violation of sec. The objection made by the electors against the proposed delimitation was that unequal wards with unnatural boundaries had been deliberately formed with ulterior motives. 8. It will thus be seen that there was a violation of sec. 14(2) inasmuch as clear one month was not allowed for filing objections and there was violation of sec. 14(3) inasmuch as the objection which was filed within the time allowed under sec. 14(2) was not considered. 9. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that these provisions are mandatory. On behalf of the contesting respondents on the other hand it was urged that they are merely directory. In my opinion the provisions of sec. 14(2) to the effect that the draft of the order should be published and at least a period of one month should be given to the electors to file objections against it is mandatory; further the provision of sec. 14(3) that the State Government shall consider the objections which are filed within the time prescribed is also mandatory. 10. Under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, it was provided under sec. 14(3) that the State Government shall consider the objections which are filed within the time prescribed is also mandatory. 10. Under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, it was provided under sec. 7 that not less than two months before the publication of any notification declaring any local area a town municipality, or altering the limits of any such municipality declaring that any local area shall cease to be a town municipality the Government shall cause to be published in the Rajasthan Gazette, in Hindi and if necessary in English, and to be posted up in conspicuous spots in the said local area in Hindi ; a proclamation announcing that it is proposed to constitute such local area a town municipality, or to alter the limits of the municipality in a certain manner or to declare that such local area shall cease to be a municipality, as the case may be, and requiring all persons who entertain any objection to the said proposal to submit the same, with reasons therefor in writing, to such officer as may be appointed or authorised by the Government in this behalf within two months from the date of the said proclamation and, whenever it is proposed to add or to exclude from a municipality any inhabited area, it shall he the duty of the municipal board also to cause a copy of such proclamation to be posted up in conspicuous places in such area, that such officer shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward every objection so submitted to the Government, and that no such notification as aforesaid shall be issued by the Government unless the objections, if any, so submitted are, in its opinion, insufficient or invalid. 11. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Jaiwant Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) that the above provision was mandatory. It was observed at p. 1721:— "Sec. 7 of the Act is intended to afford an opportunity to the inhabitants of a local area to file objections in writing against the proposal of the Government to include a particular area in a particular municipality. Sub-sec.(3) of sec. 7 of the Act is in negative form and it is therein provided that no declaration under sec. 5 of the Act shall be issued by the Government, unless objections, if any, so submitted, are in its opinion insufficient or invalid. Sub-sec.(3) of sec. 7 of the Act is in negative form and it is therein provided that no declaration under sec. 5 of the Act shall be issued by the Government, unless objections, if any, so submitted, are in its opinion insufficient or invalid. It may be noted that sub-sec. (3) gives a clue to the intention of the legislature as to nature of the provisions of sub-sec.(1) of sec. 7 of the Act. A valuable right of filing objections is conferred by sec. 7(1) of the Act upon the inhabitants of a locality and the Government is subjected to a duty of considering their objections if any and to issue a declaration under sec. 5 of the Act only in the event they come to the conclusion that the objections received under sec 7(1) of the Act are insufficient or invalid. In case, no notification under sec. 7 of the Act is issued and a declaration under sec. 5 of the Act is made, the inhabitants of such local areas would be deprived of their right of filing objections, which it is obligatory on the part of the Government to consider before making a declaration under sec. 5 of the Act. The inhabitants of the local area cannot have any control over the Government, and if the provision of sec. 7(1) is regarded as directory, they would be deprived of their valuable right of making objections against the proposed inclusion of a local area in a particular municipality. The point of allowing opportunity of filing objections under sec. 7(1) of Act cannot be regarded as a matter of convenience only, for it relates to the essence of the statute and is a matter of substance. Once Notification under sec. 7 of the Act is published and an opportunity to file objections is afforded, it is for the Government to decide whether objections are insufficient or invalid, and to make a declaration under sec. 5 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the provision of sec. 7 of the Act is of a mandatory nature." Although sec. 14(3) is not worded in a negative form the above reasoning is in my opinion fully applicable to the delimitation of wards made under sec. 14 of the present Act. 5 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the provision of sec. 7 of the Act is of a mandatory nature." Although sec. 14(3) is not worded in a negative form the above reasoning is in my opinion fully applicable to the delimitation of wards made under sec. 14 of the present Act. For delimitation of wards is, I think, as important as the inclusion of a particular area within a municipality or its exclusion therefrom. In Uda Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2) it was observed at page 552— "There is substantial reason for the Legislature to entrust the performance of this duty (delimitation of wards under sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act 1951) to the Government (or its delegate). In a particular municipality the result of the election can be materially affected by delimiting the wards in a particular way, giving undue representation to the people of some areas and less than due representation to the people of other areas...... By manipulating the formation of constituencies the return of candidates belonging to a party supported by a minority of voters can be secured". On account of the importance of delimitation of wards it has been provided under, sec. 299 of the present Act that the power to delimit them cannot be delegated by the State Government to any subordinate authority and provision has been made under sec. 14 for the publication of draft the delimitation order for inviting objections and for the decision of the objection so received by the State Government. 12. It may be mentioned here that the provision for delimitation of wards was contained in sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951. It was held by this Court in the following decisions that the provisions of that section are mandatory:— Qurab Ali Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan (3), Udaram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2), Roshan Lal Arora Vs. Gauri Shanker (4). 13. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was argued that as the petitioners did not file any objection under sec. 14(2) they are not competent to make the present writ petition on the ground of violation of the mandatory provisions of sec. 14 I am unable to accept this argument. As was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mallappa Basappa Vs. 14(2) they are not competent to make the present writ petition on the ground of violation of the mandatory provisions of sec. 14 I am unable to accept this argument. As was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mallappa Basappa Vs. Basavaraj Ayyappa (5) an election is an essential part of the democratic process in which the entire constituency is interested. A single elector is therefore in my opinion competent to maintain a writ petition challenging the validity of the election on the ground of a fundamental defect. Further the objection filed before the Collector was one in a representative capacity on behalf of the electorate in general and was intended to promote the democratic character of the election. 14. I am accordingly of the opinion that the entire election was vitiated on account of the violation of the mandatory provisions of sec. 14. The co-option, which was done by the elected members, is also vitiated. 15. The second ground taken by the petitioners is that the notice under sec. 23 having been published only 3 days before the election, after all the steps culminating in the final election with the exception of polling had taken place, did not serve the purpose for which such a notice has been prescribed by the Legislature and consequently the election is vitiated. It was alleged that the petitioners were outside Lachhmangarh and only came to know about the present election after the last date for filing nomination papers, namely 22.4.61, had passed. Further it was asserted that they intended to stand as candidates at the election but were prevented from doing so on account of the failure to publish the notice under sec. 23 before the commencement of the process of election. The contention on behalf of the contesting respondents is that sec. 23 does not prescribe when the notification made under it should be published and that as the notification was published before the election was held there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of sec. 23. In Gokulchand Vs. State of Rajasthan (6) it was held that the provision contained in sec. 23 of the Act requiring the publication of the date of the general election in the official gazette is mandatory, and where it is not complied with, the election is null and void. 23. In Gokulchand Vs. State of Rajasthan (6) it was held that the provision contained in sec. 23 of the Act requiring the publication of the date of the general election in the official gazette is mandatory, and where it is not complied with, the election is null and void. It was observed in the course of the judgment that an examination of the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder go to show that the notification under sec. 23 lays the foundation of the election and gives jurisdiction to the Collector to hold it. Clause 4(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960, reproduces the provision contained in sec. 23 of the Act and provides for the appointment of a date for holding the election by a notification in the official gazette. It is only after such a notification has been published that the Collector is authorised to appoint a returning officer under cl. 5. Publication by other means cannot take place of the publication by notification in the official gazette. 16. The following observations made in Parmeshwar Mahaseth Vs. The State (7) were quoted with approval :— "Applying these principles, it will be seen that the publication of the notification is the very foundation of the election, and the noncompliance with these provisions is calculated ito deprive any electors of their right to vote at the election. The publication of this notification really gives the District Magistrate jurisdiction to hold elections of the Commissioners of the Municipality. Mere proclamation of the notification by beat of drum, by pasting copies thereof, as laid down in sec. 356, is not sufficient for the simple reason that most of the residents of different wards of the Darbhanga Municipality may be residing at different places. It is really the publication in the Official Gazette which will convey necessary information about holding of the election to the prospective voters. The omission to give due publicity to the notification will occasion great inconvenence to the electors. Great prejudice is inherent in non-publication of the notification, and the result of such election cannot be deemed to have been materially affected. In these circumstances, principle of R. 75 on which the learned Government Advocate relied, is not really applicable to the present case. Great prejudice is inherent in non-publication of the notification, and the result of such election cannot be deemed to have been materially affected. In these circumstances, principle of R. 75 on which the learned Government Advocate relied, is not really applicable to the present case. I think, the provision of r. 7 of the Election Rules is mandatory, and non-compliance with those provisions will invalidate the entire election" In Gokul Chands case no notification under sec.23 was published before the election. It was only published after the election had taken place. 17. In Shankerlal Vs. Collector Ganganagar(8) notice under sec. 23 was published in the Gazette dated 29th March 1961. The election was held on 6th April, 1961. The Returning Officer was appointed by the Collector under an order dated 4.5.60. As has been pointed out above clause 5 of the Election Order provides that the Collector shall appoint a person to be the Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting the election immediately after a date has been appointed for holding general election by a notification under sec. 23. It was argued that the Collector gets jurisdiction to appoint a Returning Officer under clause 5 only after the notification under sec. 23 has been published and an order passed before the publication of such a notification is a nullity and that the election was consequently vitiated as it was conducted by an unauthorised person. This argument was repelled on the ground that the provision contained in clause 5 was merely a procedural provision which did not have any public policy behind it and it could not therefore be regarded to be mandatory in its entirety. It was held that what was mandatory was that the Returning Officer should be a gazetted officer who should have been appointed by the Collector for the purpose of conducting the election. It was observed— "Even if it is assumed that only the publication of the notification under sec. 23 gives jurisdiction to the Collector to appoint the Returning Officer the act of appointing the Returning Officer is purely a ministerial act and an appointment made before the publication of the notifycation will acquire validity as soon as the notification is published. It will also validate all the acts of the Returning Officer which he might have performed before the date of the publication of the notification." 18. It will also validate all the acts of the Returning Officer which he might have performed before the date of the publication of the notification." 18. The programme for the election in that case was as follows— (1) Publication of Notice inviting nomination etc. under clause 7 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order 1960. ... 24.3.61 (2) Presentation of nomination papers in the office of R. O. Municipal Board Sangaria (at Sangaria) under clause 8 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960. ... 2.4.61 upto 3 p. m. (3) Publication of list of nomination under clause 11 of Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960. ... 2.4.61 (4) Scrutiny of nomination papers in the office of R. O. Municipal Board Sangaria (at Sangaria) under clause 12 of Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960. ... 8.4.61 upto 4 p. m. It will be seen from the above programme that the last date for filing nomination papers had passed before the notification under sec. 23 was published. This was not held to be a fundamental defect vitiating the entire election. 19. This decision is applicable so far as the second ground is concerned. I accordingly hold that the election was not vitiated on this ground. 20. The third ground on which the election has been challenged is that the order of the Collector under sec. 22 was only published in the gazette one day before the publication of the final electoral rolls and that people were therefore prevented from filing claims or objections against the draft electoral rolls. It was held in DharamChand Vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 91 of 1961) decided on 10th November, 1961 that non-publication of the order of the Collector passed under sec. 22 does not vitiate the election. In this connection the decisions in Anop Chand Ghiya Vs. the State of Rajasthan(9) and Jugal Kishore Vs. The State of Rajasthan(l0) may be referred to. 21. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the election and the co-option of respondents Nos. 4 to 20 are set aside. The State Government is restrained from holding fresh elections to this Municipality without going through the procedure prescribed under sec. 14(2) and (3) afresh. 22. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition.