Judgement PATHAK, C. J.:- By our order dated 5-4-1974 we allowed the petitions in Civil Rules Nos. 87, 86, 153 and 111 of 1974 and rejected the petition in Civil Rule No. 104 of 1974. In this Judgment we give detailed reasons for our decision. 2. The above petitions 5 (five) Civil Rules are directed against the rejection of nominations as candidates for election as councillors of the Mohakuma Parishads concerned and president of Gaon Panchayat concerned under the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 (Act No. XI of 1973) and the Assam Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, 1973, framed under the said Act. The facts of the above cases are similar with slight variations here and there and the questions of law that arise for consideration in the above cases are found to be same and hence we have heard all the above cases together and this judgment will cover all the above Civil Rules. 3. Let us state briefly the facts of Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974. 4. The petitioner Jaineswar Bora is a citizen of India having his permanent home at Kampur in the District of Nowgong. His name appears in the Electoral roll for 1973 of Nowgong Mohakuma Parishad against serial No. 38 of Barpattia No. 3 which is included in Kampur Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner is a contractor under the Public Works Department of the Government. As a contractor he submits tender in proper forms by depositing the required earnest money against the works advertised, when his tender is accepted a formal agreement is executed between the Public Works Department and the petitioner for execution of the works allotted to him. The petitioner does the work as per contract signed, spends his own money for the works, and gets the money from the Government by submitting bills against the works done. The petitioner is not paid any salary, allowances or remuneration as such by the Government for the contract. The petitioner as a contractor is not subject to appointment, dismissal or disciplinary proceeding as applicable in the case of persons holding a Post under the Government. 5. The petitioner is a Matriculate and he is well versed in the language of the region i. e. Assamese. He can write and read very well, Assamese, English and Bengali. The petitioner as a contractor is not subject to appointment, dismissal or disciplinary proceeding as applicable in the case of persons holding a Post under the Government. 5. The petitioner is a Matriculate and he is well versed in the language of the region i. e. Assamese. He can write and read very well, Assamese, English and Bengali. In 1963 the petitioner was registered as a Class III Contractor and at present he is registered as Class II Contractor under the Public Works Department of the Government of Assam. 6. The Magistrate under the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the Panchayati Raj Act) fixed under Rules 12 and 13 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, the date of election and other necessary dates as follows - 26-2-1974 - date for presenting nomination papers; 28-2-1974 - date for scrutiny of the nomination papers; 2-3-1974 - last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers; 11-3-1974 - date for making announcement of the results of the scrutiny; and 11-4-1974 - date for holding elections. 7. The petitioner filed his nomination paper on 26-2-1974 as a candidate for election as a councillor of the Nowgong Mahakuma Parishad from the Kampur Gaon Panchayat. All the nomination papers so filed were scrutinised by the Magistrate on 28-2-1974 but the Magistrate rejected the petitioners nomination on the same date on the ground that the petitioner was a contractor under the Public Works Department, Government of Assam, at the relevant time and as such he was disqualified under Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act. The order of rejection of nomination which has been challenged in this Civil Rule reads as follows :- (English translation): "This nomination paper has been examined by me under Rule 20 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, 1973 and the following decision has been taken. As he is a contractor under the P. W. D. and holding office of profit his candidature is rejected." The above facts are not disputed. 8-9. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with law in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner admits that he is a contractor under the Public Works Department and his contract is still subsisting. 10. 8-9. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with law in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner admits that he is a contractor under the Public Works Department and his contract is still subsisting. 10. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that to hold a contract under the Public Works Department of the Government or any other Department of the Government is not a disqualification as laid down in Section 20 (2) (a) read with Section 12(1) of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Magistrate in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he is a contractor under the Public Works Department of the Government acted without jurisdiction and contrary to law and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 11. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Respondents that being a contractor or holding a contract under the Government is to hold an office of profit under the Government and therefore it is a disqualification under Section 20 (2) (a) read with Section 12 (1) of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with law in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner on the admitted facts. At this stage it would be convenient to quote the relevant provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Panchayati Raj Rules. 12. Section 12 of the Panchayati Raj Act reads as follows:- "12 (1) No person shall be elected nominated and remain as member of Gaon Panchayat, if he:- (a) **** **** (b) **** **** (c) **** **** (d) **** **** (e) **** **** (f) **** **** (g) holds any office of profit under Government or under Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat; or (h) **** **** **** **** 13. Section 20 (1) reads as follows :- "The Mohkuma Parishad as establied under Section 3 shall consist of:- (a) One Councillor of the Mohkuma Parishad to be elected in the manner prescribed by the voters of a Gaon Panchayat area from amongst themselves excluding such voter or voters as may have been elected under the Representation of People Act, 1951 to the State Legislature or to the Parliament. (b) **** **** (c) **** **** (2) (a) No person shall be elected and remain as councillor of the Mohkuma Parishad if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 12. (b) **** **** **** **** 14. Relevant portions of Rule 19 of the Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules read as follows:- "19. Filing of Nomination.- (1) (a) *** (b) **** **** (c) Any person whose name appears in the list of voters of any of the constituencies of a Gaon Panchayat Published under Rule 8, excluding such voter or voters as may have been elected under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to the State Legislature or to the Parliament and who is not disqualified under Section 12 of the Act, may be nominated as a candidate for election as a Councillor of the Mohkuma Parishad concerned from such Gaon Panchayat area by submitting a nomination paper signed by a voter of any of the constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat as proposer and by the candidate as token of his consent to stand as a candidate. (2) **** **** **** **** 15. Rule 20 of the Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules reads as follows:- "20. Scrutiny of Nomination.- The Magistrate or any other officer as may be authorised by him, shall examine the nomination papers on the date and at the time and place notified for the purpose under Rule 13. He shall have a copy of the electoral roll of the concerning Gaon Panchayat Constituencies with him. He shall give the candidate or his proposer reasonable opportunity to hear at the time of examining the nomination papers and shall decide on the spot, objection if any, by summary enquiry. He may either on his own initiative or on objection raised, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds namely,- (a) that the candidate is not qualified under the provisions of the Act, or (b) that there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of these rules or orders made under these rules; Provided that nothing in this clause shall be deemed to authorise rejection of the nomination paper of any candidate on the ground of irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by means of other nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed." 16. Rule 24 reads as follows :- "24. Procedure in contested and uncontested election.- (1) Immediately after expiry of the period of withdrawal of candidature the Magistrate or the Officer authorised by the Magistrate shall in respect of every election declare the names of the candidates whose nomination papers have been found valid. (2) If there is only one valid nomination in respect of a particular election, the Magistrate or the Officer authorised shall declare such candidate to be duly elected from the constituency concerned. (3) If there are more than one valid nomination in respect of a particular election a poll shall be taken on the date notified for election under Rule 13. (4)**** ****" 17. Rule 51 reads as follows :- "51. No election held under this Act or Rules made thereunder shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules to the Assistant District Judge having Jurisdiction thereof by any candidate." 18. Rule 58 - If in the opinion of the Judge:- (a) **** **** (b) **** **** (c) the result of the election has been materially affected by any irregularity in respect of the nomination paper or by the improper reception or refusal of nomination paper or vote or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, the election of such candidate shall be void. 19. Going through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it is found that no voter shall be elected and remain as councillor of the Mohkuma Parishad if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 12 and that any voter who is not a member of the State Legislature or the Parliament and who is not disqualified under Section 12 of the Act may be nominated as a candidate for election as a councillor of the Mohkuma Parishad concerned from such Gaon Panchayat area. 20. On consideration of the provisions of Section 20 (2) (a) and Section 12 (1) (g) and Rule 19 (1) (c) it is found that any voter who holds any office of profit under the Government cannot be elected nominated and remain as councillor. 20. On consideration of the provisions of Section 20 (2) (a) and Section 12 (1) (g) and Rule 19 (1) (c) it is found that any voter who holds any office of profit under the Government cannot be elected nominated and remain as councillor. Under Rule 20 the Magistrate is required to examine the nomination papers and to decide objections, if any, on the spot by summary enquiry and he may reject any nomination on the ground that the candidate is not qualified under the provisions of the Act. 21. Admittedly the petitioner holds a contract at the relevant time under the Public Works Department of the Government. The question that arises for decision therefore is whether a voter who holds a contract under the Government can be said to hold an office of profit under the Government within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act. 22. Some of the meanings of the word "office" as given in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary are as follows :- "A function or duty; settled duty or employment: a position imposing certain duties or giving a right to exercise an employment: possession of a post in the Government: business: act of worship." 23. Some of the meanings of the word office as given in Strouds Judicial Dictionary are as follows:- (a) An office is "a right to exercise a public or private employment and to take the fees and emoluments thereunto belonging". (b) In any case "an office necessarily implies that there is some duty to be performed." (c) "Office" was held to be an apt word to describe the position of a trustee, or any position in which services are due by the holder and in which the holder has no employer. "(d) Office of Profit" does not connote that its incumbent actually makes a profit from it; if "it might reasonably be expected that a man would make a profit of it must be considered an office of profit." 24. In Smt. Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, AIR 1970 SC 694 , while considering Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution the Supreme Court (majority judgment) observed as follows :- "The word office has various meanings and we have to see which is the appropriate meaning to be ascribed to this word in the context. In Smt. Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, AIR 1970 SC 694 , while considering Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution the Supreme Court (majority judgment) observed as follows :- "The word office has various meanings and we have to see which is the appropriate meaning to be ascribed to this word in the context. It seems to us that the words, its holder occurring in Article 191 (1) (a), indicate that there must be an office which exists independently of the holder of the office. Further, the very fact that the Legislature of the State has been authorised by Article 191 to declare an office of profit not to disqualify its holder, contemplates existence of an office apart from its holder. In other words the Legislature of a State is empowered to declare that an office of profit of a particular description or name would not disqualify its holder and not that a particular holder of an office of profit would not be disqualified. It seems to us that in the context Justice Rowlatts definition in (1922) 8 Tax Cas 231 is the appropriate meaning to be applied to the word office in Article 191 of the Constitution. Justice Rowlatt observed at P. 235:- "Now it is argued, and to my mind argued most forcibly, that that shows that what those who use the language of the Act of 1842 meant, when they spoke of an office or an employment, was an office or employment which was a subsisting, permanent, substantive position which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders, and if you merely had a man who was engaged on whatever terms, to do duties which were assigned to him, his employment to do those duties did not create an office to which those duties were attached. He merely was employed to do certain things and that is an end of it and if there was no office or employment existing in the case as a thing the so-called office or employment was merely an aggregate of the activities of the particular man for the time being. And I think myself that that is sound. He merely was employed to do certain things and that is an end of it and if there was no office or employment existing in the case as a thing the so-called office or employment was merely an aggregate of the activities of the particular man for the time being. And I think myself that that is sound. I am not going to decide that because I think I ought not to in the state of the authorities, but my own view is that the people in 1842 who used this language meant by an office a substantive thing that existed apart from the holder." This definition was approved by Lord Atkinson at page 246. This language was accepted as generally sufficient by Lord Atkin and Lord Write in MacMillan v. Guest (H. M. Inspector of Taxes), (1943) 24 Tax Cas 190. Lord Atkin observed at P. 201:- "There is no statutory definition of "office". Without adopting the sentence as a complete definition one may treat the following expression of Rowlatt. J in Great Western Rly Co. v. Bater. (1920) 3 KB 266 at p. 274, adopted by Lord Atkinson in that case (1922) 2 AC 1 at p. 15 as a generally sufficient statement of the meaning of the word: "an office or employment which was a subsisting permanent, substantive position, which had an existence independent of the person who filled it which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders. Lord Wright at p. 202 observed: "The word "office" is of indefinite content; its various meanings cover four cloumns of the New English Dictionary but I take as the most relevant for purposes of this case the following:- "A position or place to which certain duties are attached, especially one of a more or less public character." This, I think roughly corresponds with such approaches to a definition as have been attempted in the authorities, in particular (1922) 2 AC 1, ...... where the legal construction of these words, which had been in Schedule E since 1803 (43 Geo. III, c. 122, Section 175), was discussed." 25. The language of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act is similar to the language of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution so far as the problem before us is concerned. where the legal construction of these words, which had been in Schedule E since 1803 (43 Geo. III, c. 122, Section 175), was discussed." 25. The language of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act is similar to the language of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution so far as the problem before us is concerned. Article 191 (1) (a) provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the State Legislature if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or any State other than an office declared by the State Legislature by law not to disqualify its holder. 26. Similarly Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act provides that no person shall be elected, nominated and remain as member of a Goan Panchayat if he holds any office of profit under the Government. 27. In conformity with the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Kathurias case AIR 1970 SC 694 (supra), we are of the opinion that the word office mentioned in Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act indicates an office which exists independently of the holder of the office. 28. Paragraph 278 (Chapter III) of the Public Works Department Code, Government of Assam, reads as follows:- "278. The recognised systems for carrying out work and supplying or carrying materials otherwise than by the employment of daily labour, are "piece-work" and "contract work." Piece-work is that for which a rate only is agreed upon without reference to the total quantity or the quantity to be done within a given period. The term "contract", as used in this chapter, does not include agreements for the execution of work by piece-work, nor does it include ordinary purchases of materials. All other work, done under agreement, is termed "contract work" and agreements for such work, which should invariably be in writing and should be precisely and definitely expressed, should state the quantity and quality of the work to be done, the specifications to be complied with, the time within which the work is to be completed, the conditions to be observed, the security to be lodged, and the terms upon which the payments will be made and penalties exacted with any provisions necessary for safeguarding the property entrusted to the contractor." 29. Paragraph 279 of the Public Works Department Code reads as follows :- "279. "Contract" may be of three kinds, viz. lump sum, schedule and a combination of these two- In a lump sum contract, the contractor engages to execute the work with all its contingencies for a fixed sum. Schedule contracts are those in which the contractor undertakes to execute the work at fixed rates, the sum he is to receive depending on the quantities and kind of work done or materials supplied. The third kind of contract is a combination of both these. Thus, a fixed sum is proposed for the completion of the work as specified and a schedule of rates is agreed upon by which to regulate the price to be paid or to be deducted for additions and alterations. 30. Clause 280 of the Public Works Department Code reads as follows:- "280. Engineers and their subordinates are responsible that the terms of contracts are strictly enforced, and that no act is done tending to nullify or vitiate a contract. All contract deeds must be executed on one or other of the standard forms, but they may be modified to suit local requirements after consultation with the legal advisers of Government. The terms of a contract once entered into should not be materially varied without the previous consent of the officer competent to enter into the contract as so varied. All agreements or security bonds entered into with the Public Works Department by contractors for the execution of work or for securing the due performance of contracts are exempt from stamp duty." 31. Considering the above provisions by which the contract under the Public Works Department are regulated, we are of the opinion that to enter into an agreement with a person for some contract work under the Government is not to create an office. In other words, when a person undertakes to execute some work under the Public Works Department and enters into a contract deed with the Government to that effect, he does not hold office under the Government. 32. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that persons are on their applications, registered as recognised contractors under the Public Works Department and they are registered as contractors Class I, Class II, Class III and so on. 32. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that persons are on their applications, registered as recognised contractors under the Public Works Department and they are registered as contractors Class I, Class II, Class III and so on. This registration of the contractors or preparing a list of the contractors, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents, creates an office of contractor. We are, however, unable to accept this submission in view of the meaning of the word office generally accepted as discussed hereinabove. Merely including the name of a person in the list of recognised contractors does not mean that that person holds any contract under the Department. To hold a contract under the Department, one must enter into an agreement with the Department. That apart, to hold a contract under the Government is not to hold an office under the Government. 33. That the phrase "holder of an office of profit under the Government" does not include a contractor under the Public Works Department or under any Department of the Government, is quite clear from the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as well as the Assam Panchayat Act, 1959 which has been repealed by the Assam Panchayati Raj Act 1972 under which the present case arises. 34. Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution lays down that if a person holds any office of profit under the Government he is disqualified from being chosen as member of the State Legislature. 35. Article 191 (1) (e) of the Constitution provides that a person shall be disqualified to be chosen and for being a member of the State Legislature if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. 36. Section 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (unamended) reads as follows :- "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State- ** ** ** ** (d) if, whether by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust from him or for his benefit or on his account, he has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works or the performance of any services undertaken by the appropriate Government." 37. By Section 20 of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1966, Chap. III of Part II of the Representation of the People Act 1951 has been substituted by new chapters wherein a new Section namely Section 9-A has been introduced which reads as follows:- "9-A. Disqualification for Government contractors, etc.- A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by, that Government. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, where a contract has been fully performed by the person by whom it has been entered into with the appropriate Government, the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that the Government has not performed its part of the contract either wholly or in part." 38. Section 16 of the Assam Panchayat Act 1959, the predecessor of the present Panchayati Raj Act provided for disqualification of the President, Vice-President and members of the Gaon Panchayat. 39. Section 16 (1) (e) reads as follows:- "S. 16 (1). No person shall be elected or co-opted and remain as President, Vice-President or member of the Gaon Panchayat, if he- (a) *** *** (b) *** *** (c) *** *** (d) *** *** (e) holds any service of profit under Government or any educational institution recognised by and receiving grant from the Government or holds any remunerated office under Gaon or Anchalik Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat or holds any contract under any of the aforesaid bodies; *** *** ***" 40. The above provisions of law show that though a person holding an office of profit under the Government was disqualified to be a member of the State Legislature under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution, separate provisions were made under Section 7 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in exercise of powers under Article 191 (1) (e), for disqualifying contractors under the Government. The provisions disqualifying a contractor under the Government have subsequently been amended by the Representation of the People (Amenment) Act, 1966 as quoted above by introducing Section 9-A. Section 16 (1) (e) of the Assam Panchayat Act 1959 also goes to show that the Legislature made a distinction between persons holding any service or office of profit under Government or Government aided institution and persons holding any contract under the Government or Government aided institutions etc. 41. When the State Legislature enacted the Assam Panchayati Raj Act in 1972, it was fully aware of the provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Assam Panchayat Act 1959, and therefore when it did not make separate provisions for disqualifying the contractors under the Government for the purpose in the Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, it is difficult to hold that the State Legislature while enacting Section 12 (1) (g) treated a person holding contract under the Government as same as a person holding an office of profit under the Government. 42. On consideration of the above provisions of law and the provisions of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act and the Rules thereunder we are clearly of the opinion that the disqualification mentioned in S. 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act does not include a person holding a contract under the Government. In other words, to hold a contract under the Government is not a disqualification contemplated under Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act. 43. That being the position, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner because he was a contractor under the Public Works Department and as such holding an office of profit. The rejection of the nomination paper purported to be made under Rule 20 (a) of the Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules is absolutely without jurisdiction and the error of law committed by the Magistrate is apparent on the face of the record. 44. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that when two interpretations to an enactment are possible, the interpretation which conforms to the purpose of the Act should be accepted and therefore it should be held that the phrase "office of profit under the Government" includes a contract under the Government. 44. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that when two interpretations to an enactment are possible, the interpretation which conforms to the purpose of the Act should be accepted and therefore it should be held that the phrase "office of profit under the Government" includes a contract under the Government. The fallacy in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents is that the language of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act is very clear and it leaves no room for ambiguity or more than one interpretation as contended. We are clearly of the opinion that the language of Section 12 (1) (g) does not leave any room for interpreting that it may also include a contractor under the Government. The submission, in this regard of the learned counsel for the Respondents, is not acceptable. 45. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that Rule 51 of the Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules specifically provides that no election held under this Act or Rules made thereunder shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules. It is submitted that as there is an efficacious alternative remedy, no writ should be issued in the instant case even though it is found that the impugned order of rejection of nomination paper is bad in law. 46. Normally of course if there is an efficacious alternative remedy provided in the Act itself, it is not advisable to issue a prerogative writ if that specific remedy is not availed of or yet may be availed of. The submission of the learned counsel however is not acceptable on two grounds: Firstly, in Rule 51 the words used are election held that is to say, election completed. In the instant case election has not yet been completed. Secondly, we have found that the impugned order of rejection of the nomination paper is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act and it debars the petitioner to enter into the election. If he is to await again till the election is completed and thereafter to agitate the matter it will be in our opinion simply a process of harassment to all the parties concerned and it will not be for the ends of justice. 47. If he is to await again till the election is completed and thereafter to agitate the matter it will be in our opinion simply a process of harassment to all the parties concerned and it will not be for the ends of justice. 47. The learned counsel further submits that the Government by their telegram dated 19-2-1974 interpreted the provision of Section 12 (1) (g) of the Panchayati Raj Act and that interpretation shall be accepted as final. The telegram dated 19-2-1974 (Annexure B to the petition) reads as follows: "State/Telegram/Express 19-2-1974. DEPCOM NOWGONG. PDA 23573 PT. 4 (.) REF YOUR WT MESSAGE OF SEVENTEENTH INSTANT CONTRACTORS UNDER GOVT. DEPARTMENTS AND PANCHAYATS AND LESSEES OF GOVT. DEPARTMENTS AND PANCHAYATS ARE OFFICE OF PROFIT UNDER SECTION 12 (1) (g) (.)." 48. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the interpretation given by the Government that contractors under the Government Departments are holders of office of profit under Section 12 (1) (g) has been given under Section 153 of the Panchayati Raj Act and therefore that interpretation is the final interpretation and should be accepted. 49. Section 153 of the Panchayati Raj Act reads as follows:- "153. If in establishing a Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat, or in the working of such Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat, any dispute or difficulty arises regarding the interpretation of any provision of this Act or any rule or any bye-law made thereunder or any matter not provided in this Act the same shall be referred to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final." 50. The submission of the learned counsel in this regard is not acceptable on three grounds: Firstly, Section 153 lays down that if any dispute or difficulty arises regarding the interpretation of any provision of the Act or any rule or any bye-law made thereunder or any matter not provided in this Act, in establishing a Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat, or in the working of such Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad or Panchayati Adalat, such dispute or difficulty shall be referred to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final. Section 153 does not refer to constitution or Mohkuma Parishad and Gaon Panchayat. The heading of Chapter II of the Panchayati Raj Act is Establishment and Constitution of Mohkuma Parishad and Goan Panchayat. Section 153 does not refer to constitution or Mohkuma Parishad and Gaon Panchayat. The heading of Chapter II of the Panchayati Raj Act is Establishment and Constitution of Mohkuma Parishad and Goan Panchayat. Sections 3,4 and 5 of Chapter II deal with establishment of Mohkuma Parishad and Gaon Panchayat. Section 6 deals with declaring of constituencies of Mohkuma Parishad and Gaon Panchayat. Sections 7 and 8 deal with electorate and list of voters of Gaon Panchayat and Mohkuma Parishad. Section 9 deals with constitution of Gaon Panchayat. Section 20 deals with constitution of Mohkuma Parishad. Considering the above provisions and the scheme in Chapter II of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act we find it difficult to introduce the word constitution or constituting in Section 153 after the word establishing since it has not been done so by the Legislature. Secondly, if the matters of constitution of Gaon Panchayat and Mohkuma Parishad or, in other words, elections of Gaon Panchayat and Mohkuma Parishad are left to the final decision of the State Government as is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents, it may amount to abdicating legislative power by the Legislature which may in turn affect vires of Section 153 itself. Lastly, if the decision conveyed in the Government telegram was given before any dispute or difficulty arose as contemplated under Section 153 and the Magistrate followed that direction or decision of the Government regarding interpretation of provision of Section 12 (1) (g), the Magistrate cannot be said to decide the matter under Rule 20 (a) by himself but under direction of the Government. Thus the Magistrate would fail to exercise the discretion vested in him under Rule 20 (a). In any view of the matter, therefore, we are unable to hold that the Government could give the interpretation regarding the Section 12 (1) (g) under Sec. 153 of the Panchayati Raj Act as purported to be done. 51. In the result we allow the petition in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974, make the Rule absolute and quash the impugned order of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner as a candidate for election as councillor. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise afresh the nomination paper of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Civil Rule No. 86 of 1974. 52. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise afresh the nomination paper of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Civil Rule No. 86 of 1974. 52. In this Civil Rule the petitioner filed his nomination paper for election as councillor in Nowgong Mahakuma Parishad from Dakhinpat Gaon Panchayat. His nomination paper was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner was a contractor under the Public Works Department of the Government of Assam. 53. The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974 discussed hereinabove. On the reasonings given in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974 we allow the petition in Civil Rule No. 86 of 1974, quash the impugned order of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner and make the rule absolute. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise the nomination paper of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Civil Rule No. 104 of 1974. 54. In this Civil Rule the petitioner filed his nomination paper for election as a councillor from the Bikrampug Gaon Panchayat to Silchar Mahakuma Parishad. His nomination paper was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that he was a contractor under the Public Works Department of the Government of Assam. On the reasonings given in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974 we find that the impugned order of rejection of the nomination paper is bad and without jurisdiction. But in this case it is found that after rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner only one more nomination paper was left. Under Rule 24 (2) of the Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, if there is only one valid nomination in respect of a particular election, the Magistrate or the Officer authorised shall declare such candidate to be duly elected from the constituency concerned. In the instant case Respondent No. 4, Anwarul Huq has been declared elected by the Magistrate by his order dated 2nd March, 1974. In the instant case Respondent No. 4, Anwarul Huq has been declared elected by the Magistrate by his order dated 2nd March, 1974. That being the position, though we find that the impugned order of rejection of the nomination paper is bad and without jurisdiction, in view of the provision of Rule 51 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Constitution) Rules, 1973, we need not issue the writ as Prayed for inasmuch as there is an effective alternative remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case available to the petitioner. The petition in Civil Rule No. 104 of 1974 is therefore rejected and the Rule is discharged. The stay order stands vacated. Civil Rule No. 153 of 1974. 55. In this case the petitioner filed his nomination paper for election as councillor from Kanishail Jobainpur Gaon Panchayat Constituency to Karimganj Mahakuma Parishad. His nomination paper was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that he was a lessee of bamboo mahal under the Forest Department of the Government of Assam. In other words, the petitioners nomination paper was rejected because he was holding a contract under the Government. On the reasonings given in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974 we allow the petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order of rejection of the petitioners nomination paper. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise the nomination paper of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in our judgment in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974. Civil Rule No. 111 of 1974. 56. In this case the petitioner filed his nomination paper for election as a President of No. 34 Dakhin Titapani Gaon Panchayat. His nomination paper was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that he was a Government contractor on the date of filing the nomination paper. On the reasonings given in Civil Rule No. 87 of 1974 we allow this petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise the nomination paper of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in our judgment in Civil Rule No. 87/74. The stay order stands vacated. 57. We pass no order as to costs in any of the above cases. We further direct that the Magistrate shall scrutinise the nomination paper of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in our judgment in Civil Rule No. 87/74. The stay order stands vacated. 57. We pass no order as to costs in any of the above cases. D. M. SEN, J.:- I agree. Order accordingly.