JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J.—By all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of rules 3 to 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 and rules 3 to 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1978 on the ground that these rules are ultra vires the provisions of section 60 of the Himachal Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (Act No. 19 of 1970). The petitioners contention is that since the election of the respondents to various posts of different Gram Panchayats has been made pursuant to the above referred rules these elections should be set aside if the impugned rules are found to be ultra vires the provisions contained in section 60 of the Act. 2. The reply of the State has been filed and in some petitions the petitioners have also filed their rejoinders. 3. The points which arise to be considered in all there writ petitions are purely legal points and, therefore, after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties we dispose of the same as under. 4. The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was passed to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and Ziia Parishads and to provide for the constitution of Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads in the entire territory of Himachal Pradesh on a uniform pattern. Section 60 of that Act which supplies the bone of contention to the petitioners is empowering the State Government to make rules under the Act, It is found to be in the following terms : "The State Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, by notification, in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with this Act to carry out the purposes of this Act in relation to any matter concerning Gram Panchayats." The contention of the petitioners is that this section is the only provision of the Act which delegates the power in favour of the State Government to make subordinate legislation. According to the petitioners, under this section the State Government can frame rules only with regard to Gram Panchayats and not any other body. According to the petitioners, under this section the State Government can frame rules only with regard to Gram Panchayats and not any other body. In elaboration of this contention it was pointed out that section 3 which gives various statutory definitions of different terms appearing in the Act makes a clear distinction between a Gram Panchayat and a Gram Sabha and, therefore, though under section 60 the State Government can frame rules with regard to Gram Panchayats it has not power to make any rule with regard to ‘Gram Sabhas. The contention was that the rules which are impugned in these writ petitions are the rules principally with regard to Gram Sabhas and, therefore, the election of the respondents made under these rules to various positions in Gram Panchayats is void. 5. Our attention was drawn, during the course of hearing, to the fact that section 60 is not the only section which embowers the State Government to frame the rules, though in the reply filed by the State no other section empowering the State Government to frame rules has been pointed out. Our attention was drawn to sections 163 and 237 which also empower the State Government to frame rules. Out of these two section 237 would not be relevant for the purpose of these petitions because it empowers the State Government to frame rules for carrying out the judicial functions of Gram Panchayats. However, section 163 is relevant to all these petitions and the same is in the following terms: Section 163. (1) The Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. (1) All rules made under this section shall be subject to previous publication. However, section 163 is relevant to all these petitions and the same is in the following terms: Section 163. (1) The Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. (1) All rules made under this section shall be subject to previous publication. (3) Every rule made under this section or under section 60 or under section 237 shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly while it is in sessions and if, before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the House agrees to make any modification in the rule or the House agrees that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity or anything previously done under that 6. We find that it is not strictly necessary, in view of section 163 to give proper interpretation to section 60, inasmuch as section 163 stipulates that on any matter rules can made to carry out the purposes of the Act In our opinion, section 163 gives wide powers to the Government to make any rule ‘for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The Act does stipulate the formulation of a Gram Sabha as well as of a Gram Panchayat Therefore in order to carry out the formulation of a Gram Sabha necessary rules can be made under section 163 and if the rules are so made it cannot be said that they are without any powers under the Act. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to different rules it would be necessary to state that rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 is with regard to the disposal of assets and liabilities of Gram Sabhas, amalgamation of Panchayats and bifurcation of Panchayats. Rule 4 of these Rules is with regard to acquisition and transfer of property by a Sabha. Rule 5 is with regard to register of members. Rule 6 is with regard to entries in the said register and rule 7 is with regard to the custody of that register. 8. Rule 4 of these Rules is with regard to acquisition and transfer of property by a Sabha. Rule 5 is with regard to register of members. Rule 6 is with regard to entries in the said register and rule 7 is with regard to the custody of that register. 8. Impugned rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1978 is with regard to delimitation of constituencies (Wards) Rule 4 thereof is with regard to preparation of electoral rolls for Gram Sabha Rule 5 is with regard to inspection of electoral rolls and rule 6 is with regard to custody and disposal of papers. 9. Reference to the definitions contained in section 3 of the Act shows that clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 3 defines Gram Panchayat in the following terms: "Gram Panchayat" or "Panchayat" means the Executive Committee of the Gram Sabha established under section 9 of this Act." Reference to section 9 shows that it contemplates establishment and constitution of Gram Panchayat and disqualification to be the members thereof. Thus it is evident that a Gram Panchayat is an Executive body of a larger body known as Gram Sabha. 10. The definition of Gram Sabha is given in clause (m) of subsection (1) of section 3 as under : K J "Gram Sabha" or "Sabha" means a Gram Sabha established under section 5 of this Act and "Sabha area” means an area declared to be a "Sabha area" under section 4 of this Act." Reference to section 4 shows how a Sabha area can be demarcated, while reference to section 5 shows how a Gram Sabha can be established and constituted. 11. It is evident from the impugned rules, which are referred to above, that rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1971 contemplate the acquisition and vesting of property in a Sabha while rules 5, 6 and 7 are with regard to the register of members of the Sabha. These registers are utilized for the purposes of preparing the electoral rolls. 12. Impugned rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1978 are with regard to delimitation of constituencies and preparation of electoral rolls and other incidental matters. 13. These registers are utilized for the purposes of preparing the electoral rolls. 12. Impugned rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1978 are with regard to delimitation of constituencies and preparation of electoral rolls and other incidental matters. 13. Now it is an admitted position that when an election is made for a Sabha area it is made for the purpose of electing the members of the Panchayat. It is, therefore, evident that rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1971 as well as the rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Election Rules of 1978 are directly concerning a Gram Panchayat because without framing these rules no Gram Panchayat can come into existence. Apart from section 163, these rules could have, therefore, been validly framed even under section 60 because section 60 empowers the State Government to frame rules with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act in relation to any matter concerning Gram Panchayats. These rules relating to the preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and other incidental matters are obviously the matters concerning Gram Panchayats. 14. So far as rules 3 and 4 of the Rules 1971 are concerned they are with regard to the acquisition and vesting of property in a Gram Sabha. But even these rules could be framed under section 60 because it is evident from the scheme of the Act as well as the rules that there cannot exist a Panchayat without a Sabha, and the Panchayat which is the Executive body of the Sabha is expected to administer the property belonging to Sabha. Therefore, the rules relating to the acquisition and vesting of property in a Sabha are the matters concerning Panchayats themselves. The expression any matter concerning Gram Panchayats is wide enough to cover any matter under the Act which has some sort of concern or connection with the Gram Panchayat. Since Gram Panchayat has no existence which is independent of Gram Sabha even the rules framed for the purposes of Gram Sabha are the rules relating to the matters concerning Gram Panchayat. 15. Under these circumstances we see no force in the first contention raised by the petitioners. 16. Since Gram Panchayat has no existence which is independent of Gram Sabha even the rules framed for the purposes of Gram Sabha are the rules relating to the matters concerning Gram Panchayat. 15. Under these circumstances we see no force in the first contention raised by the petitioners. 16. The petitioners’ second contention was that according to the rules, the qualification of voters should be decided with reference to 31st of December of the previous calendar year. The impugned elections in all these petitions were held in the year 1978. Therefore, the qualification of the voters would be with reference to 31st of December, 1977. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that even the persons who acquired qualification after 31st December, 1977 were allowed to vote. This plea is raised in the following terms by the petitioners: "Those persons who acquired qualification after 31st of December. 1977 either by attaining the age of 18 years or by loosing ordinary residence in the village or by becoming ordinary resident in the village, contested the elections and voted at the election, the result was that the respondents who are Pradhan and Up-Pradhan and the members of the Panchayat and now are arrived as respondents have been elected as such and they constitute now the Gram Panchayat, it is submitted that more than 500 persons have taken part of the elections of the Gram Panchayat who were not entitled to take part as such and cast their votes by which the respondents-members, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat have been elected, it is submitted that their election and consequently the constitution of the Gram Panchayat is invalid in law and is required to be quashed.” In reply to this the State has made denial of the allegations as under in paragraph 5 of the reply : "Admitted to the extent that the Government decided to hold elections to the Gram Panchayats in the month of November, 1978. The rest of the contentions..................made in this para are categorically denied. The revision of the entries of Panchayat registers Parts I and II kept under rules 5 and 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 was made keeping in view the 31st December, 1977 as qualifying date. The rest of the contentions..................made in this para are categorically denied. The revision of the entries of Panchayat registers Parts I and II kept under rules 5 and 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 was made keeping in view the 31st December, 1977 as qualifying date. The elections were held strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and are quite legal and valid and consequently the constitution of Gram Panchayats is valid in law and the petitioners have no valid grounds for the writ." 17. It was contended that the allegations made by the petitioners in the above quoted paragraph 5 of the writ petitions are not specifically denied in paragraph 5 of the reply filed by the State. We are unable to accept this contention because the State Government in its reply in paragraph 5 has specifically stated that the revision of the entries of Panchayat Registers Part I and II was made keeping in view 31st December, 1977 as the qualifying date and that the elections were held strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. It is thus clear that the petitioners contention that the authorities by preparing the electoral rolls, had allowed the persons who were not qualified as on 31st December to cast their vote stands clearly and specifically repudiated in the reply. The learned Advocate of the petitioners contended that there is no denial of the allegation that 500 persons who were not qualified to vote had voted. In our opinion, this allegation was not worth any denial in view of the fact that it is too general and vague inasmuch as it does not disclose the identity of the persons who had voted though they were not qualified to vote. At any rate if some persons had committed election offence by voting though not qualified to vote the remedy was different because by the individual actions of these persons the rules cannot be declared as void. 18. Since no other point is urged in these writ petitions we find that all these writ petitions should fail. The rule issued in these writ petitions is accordingly discharged with costs. The cost to be assessed in each petition at Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.