JUDGMENT C. R. Thakur, J.—Respondent No. 9 is the Municipal Committee Bilaspur Town, Bilaspur and elections of 11 seats to the said Municipal Committee were held in December, 1975 and the results were notified vide Annexure A, dated l5th December, 1975. The petitioner was successful as one of the members of respondent No. 9. The respondent No. 1 that is, Pandit Parma Nand was defeated by the petitioner from Ward No. 4. Shri Kashmir Singh respondent No. 8 who was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate pasted a copy of the successful candidates on the notice board on 15th December 1975 of information of the general public. On 20-5-1975 the election of the President and Vice President of respondent No. 9 was fixed on which date elected members except Shri Jai Kumar participated in the election. Respondent No. 1 was not the elector nor he could have been the elector for the election of the President on 29th December, 1975. In this election the petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Committee. The election of the members of respondent No. 9 was published in the Gazette on 17th December 1975 and the election of the President was published on 6th January 1976 (Annexure-B). 2. Respondent No. 1 filed election petition under rule 88 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 1970 (to be referred lo at the Rules) and he presented the petition to respondent No. 2 that is, the Deputy Commissioner, on 31st December, 1975. The respondent No. I was required to deposit security in the Government treasury but he failed to do so, and instead he deposited the same with the election office. When the petition was presented on December 31, 1975 a note was made by the respondent No. 8 as under :— "The petition be examined in the light of the rules and thereafter has to be forwarded to the State Government." It appears that no action was taken on the order made by respondent No. 8 on December 31, 1975. Thereafter, it appears, the petition was forwarded to respondent No. 3. The only action that was taken by respondent No. 3 that is the State, was the appointment of a Commission to try the election petition and, therefore according to the petitioner, the respondents 2, 3 and 8 failed to discharge their duties enjoined upon them by law. Thereafter, it appears, the petition was forwarded to respondent No. 3. The only action that was taken by respondent No. 3 that is the State, was the appointment of a Commission to try the election petition and, therefore according to the petitioner, the respondents 2, 3 and 8 failed to discharge their duties enjoined upon them by law. According to him it was incumbent upon respondents No. 2, 3 and 8 to have discharged their duties to see whether the petition was competent under law, whether it was filed by the competent person, whether the same was within limitation and whether the provisions of rule 90 (1) had been complied with. But the respondents failed to apply their mind. 3. After the respondents 2 and 8 had sent the election petition of respondent No. I to respondent No. 3 he issued a notification on 21st August, 1 76 appointing the commission to hold the enquiry into the allegations made in the election petition. The petitioner has challenged the orders appointing the commission and the proceedings before the Commission as being illegal and ultra vires on the grounds that the election petition by respondent No. 1 is not according to the rules and as such respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to refer the petition for enquiry to the respondent No. 10, and, further the respondent No. 10 had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry. The respondent No. 1 was not competent to challenge the election of the petitioner to the office of the President as he was neither a candidate nor any elector at the election. Further the election petition was not in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 8 had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. The election petition was barred by time and as such could not have been referred to respondent No. 3 for appointing a commission. Further it was averred that respondent No. 1 could have challenged the election within 14 days of the notification of the election of the President. Further notification was issued on 6th January, 1976 and the petition was filed on 31st December, 1975 and as such the petition was premature and it could not have been referred to respondent No. 10 for enquiry. Further the security deposit had not been made in accordance with the Rules. Further notification was issued on 6th January, 1976 and the petition was filed on 31st December, 1975 and as such the petition was premature and it could not have been referred to respondent No. 10 for enquiry. Further the security deposit had not been made in accordance with the Rules. Further the respondent had also challenged the election of the petitioner as member of the Committee and as also its President. Therefore, he had to make two separate deposits of the security and that not having been done, the petition was liable to be dismissed. In the premises of these facts, the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the notification Annexure-F, dated 21st August, 1975, whereby the respondent No. 3 has appointed the District and Sessions Judge. Simla Division, as the Commission to hold the enquiry into the allegations made in the election petition. Secondly the prayer is for quashing the proceedings instituted by respondent No. 1 in the form of an election petition. 4. Returns on behalf of respondents 2 and 7 on the affidavit of Shri Lal Singh, he then Deputy Commissioner, was filed. The other respondents did not file any return. According to the return it was pleaded S if the petitioner had any objection to the effect that the respondent No 10 has no jurisdiction to proceed with the election petition the petitioner can raise such objection before the Election Commission but at this; stage the petitioner has no cause to maintain the petition. It was admitted that the result was, declared inform 34 on 14-12-1975. With regard to the deposit of security it was submitted that the sum could not be deposited in the Government treasury as the bank was closed on that day due to bank holiday. Since election petition was to be received it was thought to receive the money in cash. The petition was rightly forwarded to the State Government and it is for the State Government to act under rule 92 after it has been forwarded to it. It was, further admitted that the respondent No. 1 was not a candidate to the election of the President of the Committee and election petition was no? also filed by five electors as required under rule 88 m of the (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 1970. 5. It was, further admitted that the respondent No. 1 was not a candidate to the election of the President of the Committee and election petition was no? also filed by five electors as required under rule 88 m of the (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 1970. 5. The points that are raised in the writ petition are : (a) that the election petition has not been made by a competent person (b) that the election petition is not within limitation ; (c) that the security has not been deposited as contemplated under the Rules and (d) that the respondents 2, 3 and 8 failed to discharge their duties under law. 6. The question to be determined by this Court is only whether it for the petitioner to raise these points before the Election Commission e respondent No.10 or these are the matters which had to be determined by respondents 2, 3 and 8 before the appointment of the Commission. 7. Section 262 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Committee Art 1968 empowers the State Government to appoint a Commission to hold an enquiry into the election petition. Further, rule 93 of the rules is also to the same effect. If the election petition is not dismissed under rule 92 then the State Government is authorised to appoint the Commission to hold an enquiry into the allegations made in the election petition. What follows from the perusal of the rule 93 of the Rules is that if the election person is not dismissed under rule 92 then the State Government has to appoint a person to hold inquiry into the allegations made in the election petition The grounds on which elections can be challenged are those as contained in rule 98 (i) of the Rules and which is to the following effect: "98. Save as hereinafter provided in these rules if in the opinion of the Commission: (a) the election of a returned candidate has been procured or induced or the result of the election has been materially affected, by a corrupt practice ; or (b) any corrupt practice specified in sub-clause (1), (2), (3) or (4) of clause (a) of rule 86 has been committed ; or (c) there has been any material irregularity ; or (d) the election has not been a free election by reason of the large number of cases in which the corrupt practices specified in sub-clause (1) or (2) of clause (a) of rule 86 have been committed by a candidate or an agent of a candidate or a person acting with the connivance of a candidate or such agent or any person who is not a candidate or an agent or such candidate or a person acting with the connivance of a candidate or such agent, the commission shall report that the election of the returned candidate shall be deemed to be void. 8. Mainly the grounds are those of corrupt practices as enumerated under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 98. So the enquiry is limited only to these matters to be conducted by the commission and there after under Rule 99, the commission has to submit a report. From the Rules it would be evident that the commission has got no other power except those as given to him under Rules 98 and 100 and then to submit his report in respect of those findings. It would, therefore, appear that the Commission cannot enter upon any question with regard to the limitation, the deposit of security amount and the competency of the election petition. These are the matters which are not within the powers of the election commission appointed by the State Government in exercise of its power under section 262 of the Act and rule 93 of the Rules. 9. These are the matters which are not within the powers of the election commission appointed by the State Government in exercise of its power under section 262 of the Act and rule 93 of the Rules. 9. Rule 88 provides for the making of the election petition against the return of a candidate at a municipal election or against the return of President or Vice-president or against an unsuccessful candidate with a view to his disqualification under rule 101 on the ground of a corrupt practice or material irregularity in the procedure and the petition shall be in writing signed by a person who was a candidate at the election or not less than five electors, and the petition shall be presented to the Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf, within 14 days after the date of issue of notification under rule 76, According to this rule, the petition has to be filed within 14 days after the issue of notification under rule 76 and the Deputy Commissioner has been given the powers to extend the period, in case it is not filed within 14 days, if there are in his opinion sufficient grounds for such an extension. So it is apparent that the question of limitation is not to be deter mined by the Commission to whom the election petition is forwarded by the State Government under rule 93 of the Rules. 10. Rule 90 (1) speaks about the deposit of security to be made either before or when the petition is presented. Under Rule 91 the Deputy Com missioner has to forward every election petition received by him under Rule 88 to the State Government along with his reports. The report as would be evident would be only with regard to the matters whether the election petition is in order and satisfies the conditions as mentioned in Rule 88 and Rule 90 (1) of the Rules. But as would be evident from the averments made by the petitioner there is no such report although the S. D. M. who was authorised by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf ordered that the petition be examined in the light of the rules and thereafter be forwarded to the State Government. But as would be evident from the averments made by the petitioner there is no such report although the S. D. M. who was authorised by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf ordered that the petition be examined in the light of the rules and thereafter be forwarded to the State Government. To this submission of the petitioner that there is no report with regard to the fact that the petition is in order etc. there is no specific denial by the respondents which would mean that no such report as required under the Rules was there when it was forwarded to the State Government. There is also nothing on the record to show whether the limitation period was extended by the Deputy Commissioner., It is admitted that the result of the election was pasted on the notice board on the 14th of December, 1975 although the notification shows the date as 15th December and the election petition in this case was presented on 31st December, 1975, and that way the petition was admittedly barred by time and there should have been an order of extension and the same should have been forwarded to the State Government as contemplated under Rule 91 of the Rules. It appears that the respondents No. 2 and 8 did not apply their minds to the legal position which enjoined that they must examine the election petition with regard to the matters as mentioned in Rules 88 and 90 of the Rules before forwarding the election petition to the State Government, that is respondent No. 3. Further it is also apparent that there is no report to which the attention of the State Government could be invited. The State Government also failed to apply its mind inasmuch as it did not satisfy itself if there was any report, whether the conditions mentioned in Rules 88 and 90 were satisfied before proceedings to make the appointment of a commission to hold an enquiry into the allegations made in the election petition. Therefore, these were the matters which had to be decided firstly, by the Deputy Commissioner and he had to forward the election petition to the State Government along with the report. There is neither any report nor any order by the State Government to show whether the petition was competent or not. Therefore, these were the matters which had to be decided firstly, by the Deputy Commissioner and he had to forward the election petition to the State Government along with the report. There is neither any report nor any order by the State Government to show whether the petition was competent or not. The petitioner could not raise these points before the Election Commission as they were anterior to the appointment of the commission to make enquiry into the allegations. These were not the matters which were the part of the allegations rather they were the matters which could not be enquired into by the Election Commission as his powers are limited only to the question pertaining to the allegations as contained in Rule 98 of the Rules. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on Nanhoo Mai and others v. Hira Mal and others, (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 211 submits that the non-compliance with any rule or order made under the Act or any provision of the Act does not ipso facto result in the election being set aside. The jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of a President is an exclusive one conferred on the District Judge. But I am afraid if this authority is of any assistance to the learned counsel for the respondents. In that case the only way by which the election of a President of the Municipal Committee could be called in question is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of that Act. According to section 43 B an election petition can be presented by a member entitled to vote at the election or by a candidate who has been ejected and that an election petition has to be presented to the District Judge, or in a district where there is no headquarters of the District Judge, to the Civil Judge, within whose jurisdiction the Municipality to which the election petition relates is situate. But the present is a case which is quite distinguishable inasmuch as the election petition challenging the election of a member or a President or Vice President, has to be presented to the Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in that behalf and that it has to be presented within 14 days of the issue of the notification unless the limitation of 14 days prescribed by that Rule is extended by the Deputy Commissioner if there are in his opinion sufficient grounds for such extension. Therefore, it is, according to Rule 88, the Deputy Commissioner to whom the election petition is to be presented, and, it is the Deputy Commissioner to whom powers have been given to condone the limitation and extend the period if there are in his opinion sufficient grounds for such extension, whereas no such power is given to the Deputy Commissioner under the U. P. Municipal Act. There the election petition lies direct to the District Judge or to Civil Judge. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that once the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the petition without any report with regard to the limitation etc. it would be deemed that the Deputy Com missioner had extended the limitation and further that the petition was in order. But this submission of his, does not appear to be correct and has been raised simply to be rejected. 13. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the State Government does not dismiss the petition under Rule 91 it shall proceed to appoint the Commission as contemplated under rule 93. There can be no dispute with regard to this submission that if the petition is not dismissed then the State Government is to appoint the Commission as required under section 262 of the Act read with rule 93 of the Rules. What rule 93 enjoins is that if any of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 88 or rule 90 have not been complied with the State Government shall pass an order dismissing the election petition and such order shall be final. This rule, therefore, presupposes that there must be a report of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the compliance or non-compliance of the requirement of the Rules 88 and 90. These are the pre-requisites and they must be satisfied. This rule, therefore, presupposes that there must be a report of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the compliance or non-compliance of the requirement of the Rules 88 and 90. These are the pre-requisites and they must be satisfied. But there is no report as contemplated under Rule 91 which had to be sent along with the petition, by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government so as to satisfy itself whether the petition complied with the requirements of sub-rule (1) of rule 8 t or rule 90 of the Rules. The petitioner has made a grievance that the petition was barred by time secondly the security deposit was not made in accordance with the rules. This court is not to decide these questions. It is for the competent authority to do so. Since respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 8 have failed to discharge their duties, as enjoined upon them by the Rules, therefore, the Commission appointed under section 262 of the Rules read with rule 93 is not competent to proceed with the election petition and I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of appointment of the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission are also quashed. It is now for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to examine the case in the light of the above observations and thereafter if so advised, may appoint a fresh Commission.