JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - The Petitioner-a candidate for the office of Chairman in the Bhograi Panchayat Samiti election who subsequently withdrew-challenges the election of the successful candidate Kartikeswar Patra (opposite party No. 3) on several grounds mentioned in the petition. 2. It was notified on December 7, 1967 that the poll in respect of the said election was to take place on January 7, 1968. In the notice calling for nomination of the candidates it was mentioned that the forms of nomination papers might be obtained on December 11, 1967 at Bhograi Block Office; the said nomination papers might be delivered not later than December 14, 1967. In the notice, December 16, 1967 was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers at Bhograi Block Office; January 3, 1968 was the date fixed for withdrawal of the candidates. 3. Pursuant to the said notice, six persons including the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra filed nomination. At the scrutiny an objection was raised to the candidature of opposite party No. 3 by another candidate Tusharkanti Giri on the ground that the nomination of opposite party No. 3 was not genuine and as such there was no valid nomination. Thereupon, the Election Officer on being satisfied that the objection was genuine rejected the nomination paper of opposite party No. 3 and declared all other candidates to have been duly nominated. Thereafter, as required by Rule 10 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules) the Election Officer prepared a list of the validly nominated candidates in the prescribed from in alphabetical order and assigned symbols for each of the nominated candidates in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14. The symbol 'Jeep' was assigned to Jnanendranath Sawn, one of the candidates as indicated in the prescribed form. Rule 14 provides to the effect that it shall not be necessary to show the names of the contesting candidates in the ballot paper, the intention of the rule being that the voters would vote on the basis of symbol and not by name. 4. On December 21, 1967 the Petitioner withdrew his candidature and two other candidates also subsequently withdrew their candidature. The only two rival candidates who remained were Jnanendranath Sawn and Tusharkanti Girl. 4. On December 21, 1967 the Petitioner withdrew his candidature and two other candidates also subsequently withdrew their candidature. The only two rival candidates who remained were Jnanendranath Sawn and Tusharkanti Girl. On December 28, 1967 opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra filed an application for review of the order passed by the Election Officer rejecting his nomination paper. On December 30, 1967 the Election Officer by an order of the same date recalled his decision rejecting the nomination paper of opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra and accepted the said nomination paper as valid. On the very same day Election Officer re-assigned the symbols to the three candidates in that he assigned the 'Jeep' symbol to opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra which was initially assigned to Jnanendranath Sawn which caused all the confusion as hereinafter stated. The order of the Election Officer dated December 30, 1967 is stated to have been passed without notice to the candidates and behind their back with the result that the candidates concerned did not know about the subsequent acceptance of the nomination paper which was initially rejected by the Election Officer and the change in the reassignment of symbols. On January 7, 1968 the Election took place and opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra was declared elected on the basis of the re-assignment of symbols. 5. In this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the election of opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra on the grounds, inter alia, that the Election Officer had no jurisdiction to review his order of rejection of the nomination paper and also to re-assign the symbols to the candidates; that assuming the Election Officer had such power, in any event he had no jurisdiction to do so behind the back of the candidates, with the result that there was confusion and the election was materially affected. 6. It was contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra that the ground on which the Election Officer rejected the nomination paper is not included in any of the grounds in Section 45 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 which lays down the various disqualifications for becoming a member and continuing as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. Relying on Section 45 it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 that in view of the position that such order of the Election Officer was without jurisdiction it cannot be sustained and could be reviewed at any time. In the view that we have taken on the facts in this particular case that the Election Officer passed the order without giving any notice to the candidates and behind their back, we express no opinion on the question of jurisdiction of the Election Officer to review his order. 7. Admittedly, the order of review passed by the Election Officer dated December 30, 1967 was without notice to the candidates and behind their back and as such the order cannot be sustained. In this view of the case the order of the Election Officer and the election on the basis thereof are both set aside. 8. In the result, therefore, the election of the opposite party No. 3 Kartikeswar Patra is set aside and a fresh election is directed to be held according to law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. Patra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed