JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the decision of the Election Commissioner under Rule 59 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Election, Election Disputes and Decisions about Disqualification of Members) Rules 1960, dismissing an application by the Petitioner challenging the validity of the election of the opposite party No. 1 to the Panchayat Samity from Madhupur Garh Grama Punchayet held on the 25th December 1960. The Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were the two contesting candidates for the only seat for the Samity. They both polled an equal number of votes and according to the rules a lot was drawn and opposite party no. I was declared duly elected. 2. Several grounds were alleged in the election petition before the Election Commissioner, but the only point of law that was, quite, properly, pressed before this Court was that the nomination of opposite party No. 1 was invalid and that consequently the election must be set aside. For appreciating this point it is necessary to state the following facts which are admitted. The Petitioner filed six nomination papers which were duly proposed and seconded by some of the voters in the Constituency. In one of these nomination papers his proposal was seconded by one Banchhanidhi Das and that nomination paper was filed before the Returning Officer at 12.25 p.m. on the 25th December 1956. The opposite party, however, remained content with filing only one nomination paper which was also seconded by the same Banchhanidhi Das and filed before the Returning Officer at 12.30 p.m. on the same day. The Petitioner immediately file an application before the Returning Officer requesting him to declare the nomination of the opposite party invalid inasmuch as the seconder of opposite party No. 1's nomination paper namely Banchhanidhi Das had also seconded his paper. The Returning Officer however disallowed this objection. 3. Before the Election Tribunal therefore, it was contended that as the same person, namely Banchhandhi Das, had seconded the nomination papers of both the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1, the nomination papers of both of them should have been rejected as invalid, but as there were other valid nomination papers of the Petitioner he alone should have been declared elected un-opposed. 4. The learned Election Tribunal disallowed the petition on the following two grounds. 4. The learned Election Tribunal disallowed the petition on the following two grounds. Firstly, he thought that there was no legal bar to the same person seconding two or more nomination papers. Secondly, he held that even if the seconder could not validly second two nomination papers, the nomination paper that was filed later, in point of time, should alone be declared invalid and not the nomination paper that had been filed earlier. As admittedly the nomination paper of opposite party No. 1 was filed at 1.30 p.m. whereas the nomination paper of the Petitioner was filed at 12.56 p.m. the Tribunal held that the nomination of the opposite party could not be declared invalid. The correctness of the aforesaid two views of the Tribunal has been challenged in this writ application. 5. For the appreciating the points it is necessary to quote Rule 6 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Election, Election Dispute and Decision about Disqualification of Members) Rules 1960, (omitting immaterial portions): 6-(a). The nomination of every candidate shall be made by means of a nomination paper in the form prescribed in Schedule I (b) Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members of the Punchayet as Proposer or Seconder, and the candidate shall sign a declaration in it expressing his willingness to stand for election. (c) Each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper. (d) Every nomination paper shall be presented by the candidate in person or his proposer or seconder on the date, at the place and during the hours specified in the notice for filing nomination paper to the Election Officer. (e) The Election Officer shall, at the appointed time date and place, receive, nomination papers and after the time for receipt of nomination papers is over, shall read out the names of the candidates whose nominations have been received under the preceding sub rule. He shall then scrutinise them in the presence of the candidates, their proposers or seconders, as may be present at the time. He shall then scrutinise them in the presence of the candidates, their proposers or seconders, as may be present at the time. He shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion, and after such summary enquiry, if any, as he may deem necessary, reject any nomination or anyone or more of the following grounds: xx xx xx XX X. It should be added that the form prescribed in Schedule I of the said Rule, (for filing nomination paper), expressly requires the Returning Officer to note the exact time at which the nomination paper is presented before him. Clause (c) of the said Rule 6 further says "Each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper". It is true that there is no express provision in the Rules to the effect that a proposer or seconder can propose or second only as many nomination papers as there are vacancies in the Constituency to be filled up, and no more. There was such a provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the old Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 though that provision was omitted in the Act as subsequently amended. It was therefore contended, on behalf of the opposite party that in the absence of such an express prohibition in Rule 6 there could be no valid objection to the same person seconding as many nomination papers as he chooses, irrespective of the actual number of vacancies. But 1 am not prepared to go so far. Though there is no express prohibition regarding the number of nomination papers which a proposer or seconder may sign, I think that it is implicit in Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 6 that that number cannot exceed the number of vacancies to be filled. In Clause (c) the words used are "Each candidate". According to the Oxford Dictionary, the true meaning of the word "each" is: Every (individual of a number) regarded or treated separately. Hence when in Clause (c) of Rule 6 both. In Clause (c) the words used are "Each candidate". According to the Oxford Dictionary, the true meaning of the word "each" is: Every (individual of a number) regarded or treated separately. Hence when in Clause (c) of Rule 6 both. the expressions "each candidate" and "separate nomination paper" have been expressly mentioned, the reasonable view seems to be that the same person cannot second the nomination papers of two different candidates where the election is held for filling up only one vacancy Part I of the aforesaid Rules in which Rule 6 is included deals with "Election of Members of Panchayat Samitis". u/s 11(1)(d) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parisad Act, 1959, only one member is required to be elected by each of the Grama Panchayats to a Samiti. Bearing in mind this restriction in the number of members to be elected to the Samiti, the reasonable construction of Rule 6 is that the proposer or seconder may validly propose or second only one nomination paper and no more. 6. The second point for decision is which of the two nomination papers seconded by Banchhanidhi Das should be (declared invalid. Here, I think, the lower court rightly held that the nomination paper filed earlier in point of time should be declared valid and that filed later in point of time should be declared invalid, The special requirement in the form prescribed in Schedule I attached to the Rule, about the Returns Officer noting down the exact time of presentation of the nomination paper will have no significance unless this principle of priority is observed. This is a well known principle adopted in all election disputes-see Burgoyne and Ors. v. Collins 8 Q.B.D. 450 and others. This seems to be based on the legal maxim Quod semel placuit in electionibus amplius displecer non potest (what a party has once determined, in a case where he has an election, cannot afterwards be disavowed), The same rule was applied in Queen v. Harrald (1873) L.J.R. 42 Q.B.D. 211 where it was held that if a voter was entitled to vote in one of two or more wards of a borough and he votes in more than one ward, his vote given first in point of time would be valid and would not be affected by what took place afterwards. Here the seconder had the right to second the nomination paper of a candidate. By seconding the nomination paper of the opposite party, he had irrevocably expressed his intention to nominate him, and that paper was filed earlier in point of time before the Returning Officer. The validity of that nomination paper cannot be affected by his conduct in seconding the nomination paper of the Petitioner also which was filed before the Returning Officer a little later. In Madhya Bharat it appears that this principle has been given statutory recognition in the Municipal Election Rules-see Prahlad Pandey v. Collector of Bhind M. B. L. J. 1955 H. C. R. 1570. But notwithstanding the absence of any express provision here, I think this principle should be followed as it is based on a well known principle recognised in the law relating to election. While co construing Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 as it stood prior to its amendment this principle was adopted in Hansraj v. Ram Singh. The decision in Burgoyne and Ors. v. Colins and Ors. is still good law and it has been reproduced in Halsbury's Laws of England, IIIrd Edition, Vol. 14, at page 96. See also Arnold on the Law of Municipal Corporations, 7th Edition, page 196. 7. I must therefore, while disagreeing with the learned Tribunal's view as regards the first point agree with him on the second point. The nomination of the opposite party No. 1 cannot therefore be held to be invalid. The application is dismissed, but in the circumstances of this case there will be no order for costs. Barman, J 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed