JUDGMENT According to the case of the petitioner in this writ application which is directed from an order dated the 19th, January, 1970, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Daltonganj, a copy of which is Annexure 4', he is a permanent resident of village Chauparia, police station Chainpur, in the Sadar Subdivision of Palamau district. He claims that he bas always been a voter from Chauparia and has exercised his right of franchise in Berma Gram' Panchayat, to which Panchayat the said village appertains. The petitioner and opposite party nos. 4 and 5 filed nomination papers to stand as candidates at the election to the office of Mukhiya of Berma Gram Panchayat. At the time of the scrutiny, opposite party no. 4 produced a copy of the voters list of Garhwa constituency which showed that in entry no. 1259 of Part 20, the name of the voters mentioned was Sarfuddin Ansari of village Birbandha, which is within Loto Gram Panchayat. Opposite party no. 4 raised an objection to the acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner on that ground. The petitioner then filed an application before the Subdivisional Magistrate under Rule 23 (4) of the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Rules'. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has affirmed the order of the Election Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. He has, therefore, obtained a rule against the opposite patties to show cause why the orders of the Election Officer and the Sub-divisional Magistrate be not called up and quashed by grant of an appropriate writ. 2. Since some important decisions of this Court, given many years ago, are not reported, the authorities concerned are apt to follow a decision of this Court given by a Bench consisting of Ramaswami, C. J. and Choudhary, J. in (I) Gouri Shankar Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar and another (1961 B. L. J. R. 710). This case has been distinguished, and the law has been laid down by another Bench of this Court consisting - of Hamaswami, C. J., and myself in (2) Hiralal Singh and others V. The State of Bihar and others (Miscellaneuos Judicial Case no. 1024 of 1963) 'decided on The 19th March, 1964 which decision, after distinguishing the earlier Bench decisions ; was followed by me sitting singly in (3) Jamuna Prasad V. Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif and others (Miscellaneous Judicial Case no. 1024 of 1963) 'decided on The 19th March, 1964 which decision, after distinguishing the earlier Bench decisions ; was followed by me sitting singly in (3) Jamuna Prasad V. Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif and others (Miscellaneous Judicial Case no. 1022 of 1963) decided on the 14th May, 1964. More or less to the same effect, even before the decision of the Bench of which I was a member, I had expressed the view sitting singly in (4) Ram Rup Yadav V. Ram Gopal Prasad Singh and another (Miscellaneous Judicial Case no. 804 of 1961) decided on the 5th February, 1962. 3. Rule 5 (3) of the Rules says : “ No person shall be a voter form more than one Panchayat”. To be eligible to stand be a candidate, it is necessary under Rule 21 (2) that he is entitled to vote under the Rules. As against the inhibition contained in Rule 5 (3) of the Rules, if a person gets himself entered as a voter form more than one Panchayat, or on the basis of the entry made, exercises or proposes to exercise his right as a voter in more than one Panchayat, it is plain that on infraction of the inhibition contained in the said rule, he becomes disqualified to be a voter from any Gram Panchayat with reference to which the facts stated above have happened. That being so, he cannot stand as a candidate at the election. But if there are no facts to show that a person concerned has got his name entered as a voter horn more than one Panchayat or, on the basis of more than one entry he has exercised his right as a voter or did something in pursuance of the exercise of that right, on the mere fact of entry of his name in another Gram Panchayat without connecting the person concerned with that entry or exercise of any right on the basis of that entry, it is difficult to take The view that the entry per se will bring about a disqualification to the person concerned if he wants to exercise his right as a voter from one Panchayat only. In other words, the mere entry or entries of the name of a person concerned in another Gram Pancnayat or Panchayats by itself or themselves will not disqualify the person from exercising his right as a voter in the Gram Panchayat concerned if there are no facts to connect him with the entry or entries in the manner just stated. 4. In (1) Gouri Shankar Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar and another (1961 B. L.J. R. 710), believing the statement in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the respondent, the decision was given on the footing that the petitioner in that case had himself contested for election as Mukhiya of the Orro Gram Panchayat and was defeated in that election and thereafter he had got himself' enrolled as a voter in both the Gram Panchayats of Orro and Kaithir. Naturally, therefore, he was held to be disqualified to stand as a candidate for any office in Kaithir Gram Panchayat. In the unreported decision of Ram Rap Yadav, I had stated: "It has not been provided anywhere in the Rules as to what would be the effect if a person is entered as a voter from more than one Panchayat. It may were be that, having accepted the entry as a voter from one Panchayat and having exercised his rights as such either as a voter or by standing as a candidate to some office in that Gram Panchayat, the person concerned cannot be allowed to exercise such rights in another Gram Panchayat, in the electoral rolls of which also his name is entered as a voter. I, however, do not find any justification in law to take the view that, simply because a person has been entered as a voter in the electoral rolls of more than one Gram Panchayat and without there being any thing further to show that be has exercised his right as a voter in the other Gram Panchayat, his election or the exercise of his right as a voter in Gram Panchayat, in which he bas exercised his right as such, can be set aside or invalidated." I would, however, like to add one more thing to the said view expressed by me that if it is shown that the entry of the name of the person concerned in the other Gram Panchayat has been made at his instance even though he had not exercised his right as a voter in that Gram Panchayat, that also will be a sufficient ground to disqualify him to stand as a candidate at the election of the Gram Panchayat in which his name is also entered as a voter and he wants to exercise his right In the case of Hiralal Singh, a Bench of this Court of' which I was a member rejecting the counter-allegation made in the counter-affidavit and accepting the statement of The petitioner in Paragraph 12 of the writ application, wherein he stated that he bad no concern with village Nadhari, he had no house or property there and he had never taken any part in any Gram Panchayat election from that village, it was held that the opinion of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna, disqualifying the petitioner only on the basis of the entry of the name of the petitioner in the voters'. list of the Gram Panchayat to which village Nadhari appertained- was not correct. Of course, the earlier Bench decision in the case of (I) Gaud Shankar Prasad Singh (1961 B.L.J.R. 710) was not specifically referred to and distinguished. In (3) Jamuna Prasad's case, however, when the matter came up again before me sitting singly, I referred to the Bench decision in (2) Hiralal Singh's case (Miscellaneous Judicial case no. 1024 of 1963) and distinguished the decision in the Case of Goad Shankar Prasad Singh on The ground that the finding in that case was that the person disqualified had exercised his right in pursuance of the entry in the other Gram Panchayat. 5. 1024 of 1963) and distinguished the decision in the Case of Goad Shankar Prasad Singh on The ground that the finding in that case was that the person disqualified had exercised his right in pursuance of the entry in the other Gram Panchayat. 5. Before the Election Officer, there was nothing to connect the petitioner with the entry in the voters' list of Lata Gram Panchayat. In the application under Rule 23(4) of the Rules, a copy of which is Annexure 2', in which opposite duty nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded as opposite parties, it is stated that the applicant was a resident of village Chauparia within Berma Gram Panchayat and was never a resident of any village in Loto Gram Panchayat since over twelve years. The entry of the name of the applicant in Loto Gram Panchayat was unfounded. In the affidavit filed before the Sub divisional Magistrate the petitioner stated that he had no connection with village Birbandha within Loto Gram Panchayat within Garhwa police station in the district of Palamau and that he had never exercised any right, nor did he intend to do so as a voter of Loto Gram Panchayat. In such a situation and in absence of any counter allegation before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the learned Magistrate was not justified in maintaining the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper on the ground of the provision of law contained in Rule 5 (3) of the Rules. I think the authorities must keep in mind the distinction of law as pointed out by me above. 6. My attention was drawn at the Bar to the decision of Raj Kishore Prasad, J., sitting singly, in (5) Ramsaroop Mahton V. State of Bihar and others (1961 B.L.J.R. 298) wherein in Paragraph 11 at Page 300, the learned Judge has said: “From Rule 5(3), therefore, it is manifest that the petitioner could not be a voter from more than one Panchayat. Admittedly, in Udaidih Gram Panchayat election of Mukhiya bas already been held. The question, whether the petitioner exercised his right of vote from that Panchayat or not is immaterial fall the purpose of deciding the question under consideration. It is enough to state that when the petitioner is a voter from Udaidih Gram Panchayat, he could not be a voter in the present Gram Panchayat also. The question, whether the petitioner exercised his right of vote from that Panchayat or not is immaterial fall the purpose of deciding the question under consideration. It is enough to state that when the petitioner is a voter from Udaidih Gram Panchayat, he could not be a voter in the present Gram Panchayat also. Rule 5(3) 'was clearly a bar to his being a voter in the present Gram Panchayat". The law as expounded by the learned Judge sitting singly, must be deemed to have been overruled by the Bench of this Court, of which I was a member. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, the order of the Election Officer dated the 10th January, 1970, contained in Annexure 1', and that of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 19th January, 1970, contained in Annexure ‘4’ are set aside by grant of a writ of certiorari. The Election Officer is directed by a writ of mandamus to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner as valid. There will be no order as to cost. Application allowed.