H. L. Agrawal, J. The petitioners, who are voters of Karjapatti Gram Panchayat, within Keoti Police station in the district of Darbhanga, have filed this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the entire election of the said Gram Panchayat, held partly in 1969 and partly in 1971. 2. The short facts, on which this application is based, are as follows: In may 1969, the election programme for holding the general election of the office bearers of the said Gram Panchayat was published by the Block Development Officer Keoti, acting as the Election Officer, and on 30.5.1969 nomination papers were invited according to the schedule of the election programme. In pursuance of the said programme, respondent 1 to 10 filed their nomination papers after depositing the necessary fee, but the State Government issued an order staying the election and the election could not be held. On 6.4.1971, the Election Officer issued a fresh election programme for holding election of the said Gram Panchayat and fresh nomination papers were invited. It is alleged that although according to the amended rule 21 (8) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), no fresh nomination fee was to be charged from the candidates who desired to file their nomination papers for the second time for the same offices of the said Gram Panchayat, the Election Officer charged fresh nomination fees. Respondents 1 and 2 were elected as Mukhiya and Sarpanch respectively, respondents 3 to 6 as members of the Executive Committee and respondents 7 to 10 as panches of the said Gram Panchayat in the said election. This application is directed to quash the said elections on the ground that when the election commenced in May 1969, the first election programme was issued and published, the electoral roll relating to' the Assembly constituency as amended up to May 1969 was adopted for holding the election and nomination papers were invited on the basis of the said electoral roll, whereas when the fresh programme was issued on 6-4-1971, the electoral roll of the Assembly constituency for the time being in force as amended up to 1.1.1971 was adopted and election on the basis of the said changed electoral roll was held, which has vitiated the entire election. It may also be stated that according to the first election programme published in May 1969, some of the office bearers of the said Gram Panchayat were declared elected uncontested and the second election programme issued in April 1971, was only for the remaining offices of the office-bearers. 3. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the adoption of the voters' List of the Assembly constituency and reads as follows: "5. (1) So much of the electoral roll or rolls of an Assembly Constituency of the State of Bihar, for the time being in force, as relates to the areas comprised within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Panchayat, shall be deemed to be the voters' list for that Panchayat for the purpose of election of Mukhiya and Sarpanch and so much of the said electoral. roll or rolls as appertain to a particular ward, constituted under rule 4 of these rules, shall be deemed' to be the voters' list of that particular ward for the purpose of election of Panch and member of the Executive Committee from the ward concerned. (2) No person other than the person whose name is included in the voters' list referred to in sub-rule (1) shall have, the right to vote." According to the provisions of rule 13, one copy of the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency appertaining to a Panchayat, called the voters' list of the said Panchayat, shall be kept hung, for the period between the date of publication of the election programme under rule 16 and 'the date of receiving of the nomination papers under rule 18 on the notice boards of the different offices. If an election of a Panchayat is not held for some reason or the other within a period of six months from the date of filing of nomination papers, according to the provisions of rule 90 of the Rules, fresh nomination papers have to be called for holding the election. The impugned election in the present case was certainly held beyond a period of six months from the date of filing of the original nomination papers in 1969 and, therefore, fresh nomination papers were called for in pursuance of the provisions of rule 90 aforesaid. 4. The impugned election in the present case was certainly held beyond a period of six months from the date of filing of the original nomination papers in 1969 and, therefore, fresh nomination papers were called for in pursuance of the provisions of rule 90 aforesaid. 4. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners in the present case is that the impugned election held in 1971 was an adjourned election originally fixed to be 'held in 1969 and as part of the election was held on the basis of the 1969 electoral roll, the impugned election should also have been held on the basis of the same voters' list, but as the rest of the election was held on the basis of the 1971 electoral roll for the time being in force, the same is illegal and bad. 5. The contention raised by Mr. Verma, in my opinion, has got 'no substance and must be rejected. The whole intention of the different rules indicated above is that the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency for the time being in force shall be deemed to be the voters list of a panchayat for the purpose of election, and it is this electoral roll which is called the voters' list, has to be kept hung, for the period between the date of publication of the election programme and the date of receiving nomination papers, on the notice boards of the different offices. It is manifest from the provisions of the above rules that it is only the electoral roll or rolls of the Assembly Constituency which is in force for the time being has to be adopted for holding a Panchayat election. It cannot be accepted that when the adjourned election was to be held in the year 1971 and a new electoral roll was prepared it was not this electoral roll which will be deemed to be in force for the time being as the old electoral roll which was in force during the period of holding the previous election in 1969 must be deemed to have been superseded by the new electoral roll prepared in 1971. According to sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Rules, no person other than the persons whose names are included in the voters' list shall have the right to vote. According to sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Rules, no person other than the persons whose names are included in the voters' list shall have the right to vote. In rule 21, various disqualifications have been enumerated for election, nomination or appointment of a person, as the case may be to the different offices of a Panchayat. Similarly, section 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act also lays down various disqualifications for election to the different office bearers of a Panchayat. On account of the lapse of the time between two elections, there may be cases when a person who had filed his nomination paper for any office of a Panchayat and was not suffering from any disqualification at the time of filing the said nomination, might have incurred any of the disqualification thereafter. There may also be a case that during this period a candidate might die. It is for these reasons that provisions have been made for inviting fresh nomination papers and to scrutnise them afresh. There is no challenge to the correctness of the voters' list or any other irregularity committed in holding the election. 6. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and. another vs. Radhey Shyam Dani 1957 SC 304 In this case the election to the Ajmer Municipal Committee was under challenge and there also final printed roll for the Parliamentary Constituency representing the area covered by that Municipality was to be the electoral roll for holding the election. But the election rules framed by the Chief Commissioner provided for giving the parties concerned the opportunity to scrutinise the electoral roll and for entertaining objection etc. It was held in that case that the electoral roll of the Ajmer Municipality which was authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner was not in conformity with the provision of section 30(2) of the Regulation and could not form the basis of any valid election to be held in the said Municipal Committee. This case, therefore, has got no relevance to the facts of the present case and is of no assistance to the petitioner. As already stated above, nothing has been shown to me that any irregularity was committed in adopting or following the roll prepared by the Assembly Constituency in the impugned election. 7. This case, therefore, has got no relevance to the facts of the present case and is of no assistance to the petitioner. As already stated above, nothing has been shown to me that any irregularity was committed in adopting or following the roll prepared by the Assembly Constituency in the impugned election. 7. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, having failed, it must be held that this application has got no merit. It is accordingly dismissed and the rule issued by this Court is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.