ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Election to the office of the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, Badoni Khurd, Tahsil Datia, took place on 28th July, 1970. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 were the candidates for the office of Sarpanch. The Petitioner was declared duly elected. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962, challenging the election of the Petitioner and prayed that he should be declared duly elected as the Sarpanch. The Petitioner in his written statement alleged that Respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be elected as the Sarpanch on two grounds. His first contention was that Respondent No. 1 had not paid taxes due from him to the Gram Panchayat and as such had incurred a disqualification under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. He further alleged that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of certain corrupt practices at the election of the Sarpanch. The prescribed authority while dealing with the election petition has not framed any issues on the aforesaid contentions of the Petitioner on the ground that as the election of Respondent No. 1 as a Panch was not challenged by an election petition, he was duly qualified to be the Sarpanch and the objections raised by the Petitioner were irrelevent. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition as he has no other remedy open to him. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 frankly conceded that he had no objection to an issue being framed regarding the allegation about corrupt practices. But he alleged that an issue regarding non-payment of taxes is not at all relevant so long as Respondent No. 1 is continuing as a Panch and his office as a Panch has not been declared vacant by the Collector in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 17. This contention is patently erroneous and cannot be accepted. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act lays down the disqualifications for being a Panch, Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch. Thus, even though a Panch may have been duly elected and may be continuing to hold that office he would not be qualified to be a Sarpanch if he incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act lays down the disqualifications for being a Panch, Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch. Thus, even though a Panch may have been duly elected and may be continuing to hold that office he would not be qualified to be a Sarpanch if he incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 lays down the circumstances in which a Panch, Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch who has been duly elected, appointed or co-opted may cease to hold his office on incurring certain disqualifications specified therein. Thus, the scope and the object of the provisions of Sub-section (2) are entirely different and are not at all relevant for considering the eligibility of Respondent No. 1 for being elected as the Sarpanch. It may also be pertinent to mention here the difference between the provisions of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 and Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of the said section regarding non-payment of taxes. Under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 a person incurs a disqualification only if he has not paid all taxes due by him to the Gram Panchayat at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election is held. On the other hand, under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) a disqualification is incurred on failure to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the Gram Panchayat in spite of a demand notice of not less than 30 days made therefor. It is for the purpose of determining whether a duly elected Panch, Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch has incurred such a disqualification that the power has been conferred on the Collector under Sub-section (3) of Section 17. Thus, these two provisions have been enacted for two different situations and should not be confused. Thus, we find that the prescribed authority was in error in holding that the contentions raised by the Petitioner regarding the eligibility of Respondent No. 1 for the office of the Sarpanch were irrelevant merely because he was duly elected as a Panch and was continuing as such. As this is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, it appears to us that it would be proper to interfere at this stage. As this is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, it appears to us that it would be proper to interfere at this stage. For a proper adjudication of the case it is necessary to frame issues in respect of all material questions, of law or fact. As these issues are material for a proper adjudication of the case, we think it proper to quash the order of the prescribed authority rejecting the application of the Petitioner for framing the issues in respect of the aforesaid contentions. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the prescribed authority dated 6-10-1970 (Annexure 'F') rejecting the application of the Petitioner for framing issues in respect of his contentions referred to above is hereby quashed. We make no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Petition allowed