Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order of the learned Munsiff in Election Petition No. 13 of 1979. The present petitioner was the 2nd respondent in the Election Petition. The petitioner in that proceeding who is the 1st respondent here contended that his nomination was wrongly rejected on the ground that he had been nominated by one of the candidates. He submitted before the Munsiff that a candidate is not any less an elector and as an elector every candidate is entitled to nominate any qualified person as a candidate. This contention was accepted by the learned Munsiff by Ext. P1 order. It was held that the election of the present petitioner was invalid for the reason that the 1st respondent's (petitioner before the Tribunal) nomination was wrongly rejected. 2. S.22 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 reads: "22. Determination of validity of election. (1) If on the application made by a person referred to in sub-section (2) within the period specified therein, the Munsiff, after such enquiry as he considers necessary, is satisfied (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or ... ... ... 000 the Munsiff may, subject to the provisions of S.21, declare the election of such member to be invalid, and such declaration shall be final; (2) Any person qualified to vote at the election in which any question mentioned in sub-section (1) is involved may, at any time within fifteen days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, apply to the Munsiff for determination of such question." This is the Section on the basis of which the Munsiff came to his conclusion in the impugned order. 3. R.12 of the Panchayats Election of Members Rules, 1962 deals with the nomination of candidates. Sub-rule (2) of this Rule reads: "(2) Every nomination paper shall be signed by one elector of the ward concerned as proposer and the candidate shall sign a declaration on it expressing his willingness to stand for election." This sub-rule thus allows any elector to nominate a candidate. An elector is one who is entitled to exercise his franchise. Every candidate is an elector in that sense. Being an elector he is entitled to nominate any qualified person as a candidate. A person who is qualified in terms of the provisions of S.16 is entitled to be nominated by any elector. An elector is one who is entitled to exercise his franchise. Every candidate is an elector in that sense. Being an elector he is entitled to nominate any qualified person as a candidate. A person who is qualified in terms of the provisions of S.16 is entitled to be nominated by any elector. This was rightly found to be so by the Munsiff. I do not find any substance in the present petitioner's contention that once a candidate a person is no longer an elector for the purpose of R.12. Any such construction will be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 4. The petitioner's counsel, however, contends that on the date of filing of the election petition the present 1st respondent was not qualified to challenge the rejection of his nomination for the reason that he had withdrawn his candidature and was, therefore, no longer aggrieved by such rejection. I do not find any substance in this contention. In the first place there is no clear averment on it. All that he says in the Original Petition is that after the rejection of the nomination the 1st respondent withdrew his deposit. From this he concludes that he had withdrawn his nomination, I do not think it is correct to so conclude from the, mere fact that a person has withdrawn his deposit. R.14 deals with deposits. Sub-rule 3 of that Rule reads: "(3) If a candidate by whom or on whose behalf the deposit referred to in sub-rule (1) has been made, withdraws his candidature in the manner and within the time specified in sub-rule (1) of R.18 or if the nomination of any such candidate is rejected, the deposit shall be returned to the person by whom it was made, and if any candidate dies before the commencement of the poll, any such deposit, if made by him, shall be returned to his legal representative or, if not made by the candidate, shall be returned to the person by whom it was made." This means that the deposit may be withdrawn by a candidate either when he has withdrawn his candidature or when his nominationhas been rejected. In the present case, in the absence of clear averment to the contrary, it has to be presumed that the 2nd respondent, whose nomination was already rejected, withdrew the deposit on that ground. In the present case, in the absence of clear averment to the contrary, it has to be presumed that the 2nd respondent, whose nomination was already rejected, withdrew the deposit on that ground. Such withdrawal of deposit is perfectly in terms of sub-rule 3 of R.14. The withdrawal of a deposit does not therefore necessarily indicate the withdrawal of the candidature. In any,case I should have thought that once the nomination has been rejected, rightly or wrongly, the candidature is no longer open for withdrawal. An appeal was filed by the 1st respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the rejection of the nomination. At all material times he maintained that he was entitled to be a candidate and that his nomination ought not to have been rejected. By Ext. P1 his contention was upheld, and, in my view, rightly. 5. The present petitioner further contends that the learned Munsiff did not act as a persona designata, but dealt with the matter as a court. It is true that the forum is described at the top of the order as the Court of the Munsiff. But the nature and effect of an order must be determined by its contents. The order is made in an election petition. The power exercised is the power conferred on the Munsiff under the Act and the Rules. There is no contention that the Munsiff exceeded those powers. In the circumstances, I do not agree that the order is vitiated by the sole reason that the forum is labelled as the court of the Munsiff. The label does not vitiate an order especially when the order from its very nature has been or ought to have been rightly understood by all the persons concerned as an order of the persona designata. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Issue carbon copies of this judgment to the parties on the usual terms.