( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was a candidate for election from Hosur Panchayat and whose nomination paper was rejected by the order of the returning Officer dj 2-6-1978 (Ext. A), has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the said order. ( 2 ) AFTER issuing rule nisi, I directed the High Court Govt Pleader to take notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Sri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader, took notice and appealed for respondents 1 and 2. By consent of parties the petition is taken up for hearing. ( 3 ) THE learned High Court Govt Pleader raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by means of an election petition and therefore, the petition is not maintainable in view of the bar created by clause (3) of Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) BY an order pronounced today in WP. 5014 of 1978 I have held that in the case of rejection of nomination paper, the election court constituted under Sec. 13 of the Act, has no power to direct the acceptance of the nomination paper of the election-petitioner even if it comes to the conclusion that the nomination paper was illegally rejected, but only can set aside the election and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner has to take steps for holding fresh election, I have held that while this Court can in exercise of its power under Art. 226 (1) (b) of the Constn, quash the order of the, Returning Officer rejecting a nomination paper illegally and also can direct the Returning Officer to accept the same nomination paper and to take the poll, with only the other candidates in, the field, as the election court has no power to grant such relief, the writ petition is maintainable. Hence), I over-rule the preliminary objection ( 5 ) ON the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Returning Officer has wrongly rejected the, petitioner's nomination paper on the ground that the petitioner suffered from disqualificalion mentioned in Sec-11 (l) (i) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Act'), though the petitioner does not suffer from any such disqualification. He submitted that the petitioner's seat had become vacant by operation of law on account of his not attending the meetings of the Panchayat and an order made in that behalf under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act has been misinterpreted by the Returning Officer to the effect that it amounts to the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat. ( 6 ) IN support of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, pointed out tha,t the petitioner was a member of the same Panchayat and he could not attend six consecutive meetings of the panchayat. An order was passed by the Asst Commissioner under subsec (3) of the Sec. 11 of the Act. The office of the Panchayat member held by the petitioner became vacant. He submitted that the disqualification on the basis of removal of membership of local authority stands attracted only when a member of the Panchayat was removed by an, order of the deputy Commissioner made under Sec. 34 of the Act. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of sec. 11 (2) (iv) and (3) and Sec. 34 of the Act. Section 11 (2) (iv) and (3) read as follows : 11. Disqualification for Membership: (1) (2) If a member of Panchayat- (i) (ii) (iii) * * * (iv.) absents himself for more than four consecutive months from the village unless leave not exceeding six months, so to absent himselft has been, granted by the Panchayat, or absents himself for six consecutive months from the meetings of the Panchayat without the leave of the Panchayat, his seat shall thereupon become vacant * * * (3) If any question arises whether a vacancy has occurred under sub-sec (2) the queistion shall be referred to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commr shall, after giving an oppprtunity to the member concerned to be heard, decide the question. Section 34 of the Act reads as follows : 34. Removal from or vacation of office: (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, after giving due notice to the person concerned and after such enquiry as he thinks fit, remove from office any member of the Panchayat, or any Chairmian or Vice- chairman who has been guilty of misconduct, or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty or is persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties. A person removed from the office of Chairman or Vicechairman shall not be eligible for re-election during the term of office of the members of such Panchayat. A Chairman or Vicechairman removed for misconduct shall also be removed from the office of member of the Panchayat. (2) An appeal shall lie from an, order of the Deputy Commrunder sub-sec (1) to the Commissioner. (3) Every Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall vacate office if he, ceases to be a member of the Panchayat. (4) Every Chairman or Vice Chairman who for a period exceeding three months absents himself from the village in such manner as to be unable to perform his duties as Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall cease to be Chairman or Vice-Chairman as the case may be, unless leave so to absent himself has been granted by the, Panchayat. (5) Leave under sub-sec (4) shall not be granted for a period; exceeding six months, and whenever such leave is granted to a chairman or Vice-Chairman, the Panchayat shall elect one of its members to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a vice-Chairman in lieu of the, Vice-Chairman, who is, exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Chairman, or who is absent on leave during the period for which such leave is granted, according to the provisions of Sec. 11 (2) (iv) of the Act, if a member of the Panchayat absents himself for more than four consecutive months from the village or absents himself for six consecutive months; from the meetings of the Panchayat without the permission of the Panchayat, his seat thereupon becomes vacant. When any dispute arises as to whether a, vacancy hap occurred or not, sub-sec (3) of Sec. 11 empowers the deputy Commr to make necessary investigation and to decide whether a vacancy has occurred or not. It is in pursuance of the said power the, asst Commr, exercising the power of the Deputy Commr' passed the, order d. | 23-1-76 holding that the office of the membership of the Panchayat to which the petitioner had earlier been elected had become vacant. A copy of the order is produced by the petitinoee as Ext. It is in pursuance of the said power the, asst Commr, exercising the power of the Deputy Commr' passed the, order d. | 23-1-76 holding that the office of the membership of the Panchayat to which the petitioner had earlier been elected had become vacant. A copy of the order is produced by the petitinoee as Ext. B. While passing the order, the Asst Commr in the last para of the order stated, that the petitioner and twq others stand removed from the membership of the Village panchayat, Hosur, under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act. The word 'removed used by the Asst Commr while passing the order under sub-sec (3) of Sec. 11 was inappropriate. All that the Asst Commr should have said after holding the enquiry as contemplated under sub-sec. (3) of Sep. 11 was that the office of the membership held, by the petitioner has become vacant. As the word 'removed' has been used by the Asst Commr, the Returning officer hos held that the petitioner suffers from disqualification under section 11 (1) (i) of the Act. ( 7 ) AS can be seen from Sec. 34 of the Act, it is a specific provision conferring power on the Deputy Commr to remove a member of a Panchayat after such enquiry as he thinks fit if such member has been found! guilty of misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to, perform his duty or is persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties. The removal contemplated under Sec. 34 of the Act is, on account of acts of omission or com- mission alleged against a member of a Panchayat. If a member of a Panchayat is removed by an order made under Sec. 34 of the Act, he incurs the disqualification, set 6ul in Section 11 (1) (i) of the Act. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed in this case that the order made by the Asandt commr to whom powers of the Deputy Commr has been delegated under sub-sec (3) of Sec. 11 of the Act is an order passed under the said provision and not under Sec. 34 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he does not suffer from the disqualification on the basis of which his nomination paper has been rejected, has to be, accepted. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Rule is made absolute. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he does not suffer from the disqualification on the basis of which his nomination paper has been rejected, has to be, accepted. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Rule is made absolute. The, impugned order of the Returning Officer d. 2-6-78 (Ext. A) is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and to proceed with the election in accordance with the calendar of events already published. A copy of this order shall be given to the High Court Govt Pleader immeidiateiy. Sri B. B. Mandappa, High Court Govt Pleader, is permitted; to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. --- *** --- .