JUDGMENT : Narasimham C.J. 1. This is an application under Article, 226 of the Constitution by the Sarpanch of Gopiakud Grama Panchayat challenging the validity of certain actions taken by the members of the opposite party for holding fresh elections to the said Panchayat and also to the offices of Sarpanch of the said Panchayat. 2. The material facts are these. The Petitioner was elected as a member of the said Panchayat sometime in from ward No. 10 and was also elected Sarpanch sometime in 1958. On 10-10-1960, fresh elections to the Panchayat took place, but the names of the successful candidates were not published in the Orissa Gazette as required by Rule 28 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules mainly because, in respect of election to ward No. 10 there was a dispute which was first decided by the Sub- divisional Officer (and a stay order was obtained) under Rule 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules. The matter was taken up before the High Court in an application under Article 226 the Constitution. That was finally decided on 6-2.1962 in O.J.C. No. 144 of 1961 and the election of the Petitioner's rival, Khetrabasi Samal (opposite party No. 4) to ward No. 10 was declared valid. Finally, on 20-11-1962, a list of the names, of the duly elected members of the Panchayat was published in the Gazette, but before that date one of the members namely, Nidhi Sudan Majhi had resigned from ward XIII and that vacancy has not been filled up. 3. In the meantime, with the constitution of Panchayat Samities under the Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishad Act, the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Zilla Parishad Amendment Act, 1961 (Orissa Act 24 of 1961) which came into force on 16-12-1961. 3. In the meantime, with the constitution of Panchayat Samities under the Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishad Act, the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Zilla Parishad Amendment Act, 1961 (Orissa Act 24 of 1961) which came into force on 16-12-1961. In Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of that Act it was stated that all the members of the Grama Panchayat continuing to hold office prior to 16-12-1964 shall be deemed to have continued in office until 26-1-1965, but a proviso was inserted to this clause in the following terms: Provided that where, on the expiry of the term of office of the members of a Grama Panchayat all the new members for such Grama Panchayat have in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, been elected or appointed prior to the date of commencement of the Act, and the Grama Panchayat stands reconstituted but for the election of the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch, nothing in this clause shall be construed so as to debar such new members of the Grama Panchayat from entering office in accordance with Sub-Section 11) Section 10 of the said Act and continuing in office till the 26th day of January, 165: Provided further that such members shall remain in office after the said date till the first meeting of the newly elected members of the Grama Panchayat at which the Sarpanch is elected." The main controversy between the counsel for the parties is regarding the true interpretation of this proviso. 4. Giving the natural meaning to the words used in the proviso, they would mean that if after the expiry of the term of office of the members of the old Panchayat all the new members had been ejected or appointed prior to 16-12-1961 but the new members had not yet elected a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, then, notwithstanding the main portion of Clause (b) of that section the new Panchayat members alone shall continue in office. Mr. M Mohanty however contended relying mainly on the words and the Gram Panchayat stands reconstituted occurring in the said proviso, that a Panchayat is constituted or reconstituted only from the date on which the names of the duly elected members are published in the Gazette as required by Rule 28. Mr. M Mohanty however contended relying mainly on the words and the Gram Panchayat stands reconstituted occurring in the said proviso, that a Panchayat is constituted or reconstituted only from the date on which the names of the duly elected members are published in the Gazette as required by Rule 28. Here admittedly the names of the new Punches were published in the Gazette only on 20-11-1962 after the coming into force of 894 the amending Act of 1961. Hence according to Mr. Mohanty, the aforesaid proviso has no application and by virtue of the main portion of Clause (b) of Section 49(1) of Orissa Act 24 of 1961 and the Petitioner must be deemed to have continued in office as a member of the Grama Panchayat and also a Sarpanch, notwithstanding the fact that the new elections had taken place in 1961 and the names of the new members had been duly published in the gazette on 20-11-1962. 5. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice briefly the various stages in the election of members to a Grama Panchayat as provided in the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules. Rule 23 says that as soon as the election is completed the Election Officer shall declare the candidate who has won the largest number of votes, to be duly elected. Rule 26 requires him to send a list of such candidates to the District Magistrate within a week. Rule 28 requires the District Magistrate to publish their names in the gazette. But this Rule does not fix any time limit within which the District Magistrate is bound to publish the names nor does it say that the newly elected members shall assume office from the date of such publication. Rule 31.0 deals with the holding of elections of the office of Sarpanch, and sub-rule2) of that rule says that, a meeting for the election of a Sarpanch shall be held within fifteen days from the date of publication or the names of the members in the gazette. Sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the Grama Panchayat Act says that the term of office of the Grama Panchayat shall be three years, commencing from the date of the first meeting of the Panchayat in which the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch are elected. Sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the Grama Panchayat Act says that the term of office of the Grama Panchayat shall be three years, commencing from the date of the first meeting of the Panchayat in which the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch are elected. The first proviso to that Sub-section further declares that the period of three years shall be' deemed to include any period which may elapse until the' first meeting of the newly elected members. Thus under the Act and the rules framed thereunder there are three important dates: (i) the date or dates when the Election Officer declares the candidates to have been duly elected to, the Panchayat (rule 22); (ii) the date of publication of the names of the members of the Panchayat in the Gazette (rule.28); (iii) the date of the first meeting of the Panchayat for electing the Sarpanch and the Naib Sarpanch rule: H-(C)-(z). The last date will undoubtedly be the date on which the members assume Office by virtue of Sub-section (8) of Section 10.4 of the Grama Panchayat Act. 6. Here we have to ascertain what was "the date of reconstitution" of the Panchayat, as specified in the proviso to clause(b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Amendment) Act, 1961. It cannot be the last of the aforesaid dates because that section contains the non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1948", and also because the proviso expressly refers to a date prior to the holding of elections to the office of Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. It should therefore either be the date on which the candidates were declared to be duly elected or the date of publication in the gazette. Mr. Mohanty contended that we should hold the "date of the reconstitution of the Grama Panchayat" to be the date of publication in the gazette; whereas, according to the learned Advocate-General, in view of the words used immediately before the words dealing with reconstitution of the Panchayat, the reconstitution must be deemed to have been completed as soon he elections to the Grama Panchayat are completed and the names of the successful candidates are duly declared. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General. The scheme of the amending Act 24 of 196-1. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General. The scheme of the amending Act 24 of 196-1. seems to be that where fresh elections to the Panchayat have already taken place and the results have been declared, the new Panchayat alone should be declared in Office till the 26th January 1965; but where the elections have not been completed and the old Panchayat continues to function by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section (8) of the Section 10 of the Grama Panchayat Act, that Panchayat should continue to function till the 26th January, 1965. There would have been some force in Mr. Mohanty contention if Rule 28 had fixed a period within which the District Magistrate should publish the names of the elected members of the Panchayat, but no such time limit is mentioned in the said rule, nor is there any indication in any of the provisions of the Grama Panchayat Rules or in the Grama Panchayat Act to show that until actual publication in the gazette as provided in Rule 28 a member shall not be deemed to have assumed office. 7. In this connection the language used in Sub-section) of Section 16 of the Orissa Panchayat Samities and Zilla Parish Act, 1959 (Orissa Act 7 of 1960), may be seen. There it was expressly stated that when the names of the non-official members f of the Samity are duly published in the gazette those members will be deemed to have held office from that date. If it was the intention of either the Legislature or the rule making authority i 4 that the members of the Grama Panchayat should be deemed to have assumed office from the date of publication in the gazette under Rule 2, one would have expected them to say so express There seems no reason for us to nullify the elections held to the new Panchayat once the results have been duly declared merely because, for some reason or other, such as stay from the superior authorities, the publication was held up for a long period. In the absence of any express provision justifying such a construction, the only reasonable view will be to hold that the reconstitution is complete as soon as the elections to all the rewards are over. In the absence of any express provision justifying such a construction, the only reasonable view will be to hold that the reconstitution is complete as soon as the elections to all the rewards are over. The Legislature by using the words "and the Gram Panchayat stands reconstituted but for the election of the Sarpancha the Naib Sarpanch" in the proviso to Section 49(1)(b) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Amendment Act, 1961 was only clarifying what it stated earlier namely that the election to the Panchayat in respect of all the wards had been completed. There is undoubtedly some ambiguity but in the absence of a clear indication either in the amending Act of 1961 or in the Grama Panchayat Act or in the Grama Panchayat Rules as to what is meant by "reconstitution", we think the reasonable view will be as indicated above. 8. This conclusion is fatal to the Petitioner's case. Admittedly elections to all the wards were completed by 10-10-1960. If that date is taken as the date on which the Panchayat was reconstituted the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Orissa Zilla Parish ad Amendment Act, 1964 would apply with full force and the members of the old Grama Panchayat including the Petitioner will not be entitled to continue in office till the 26th January, 1965. It is true that subsequently one of the members, namely, Nidhi Sudan Makhi (ward XIII) submitted his resignation but that would be only a casual vacancy and it cannot in any way affect any proceedings of the Panchayat in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. It cannot therefore prevent the ne Panchayat from continuing to function under the law. For these reasons we are satisfied that the Petitioner has ceased to be a member of Gopiakud Grama Panchayat, and Sarpanch of the said Panchayat, and he has no subsisting right to enforce in this writ application. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order for costs. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed