JUDGMENT - Ginwala, J.: -The general election to the Gram Panchayat of Dhamna was to be held in the month of March, 1984. Respondent No. 2 who was appointed as Returning Officer for holding this election issued a programme as required by rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules. According to this programme, the last date of filing nomination forms was 27-3-1984 and the nomination forms were to be scrutinised on 28-3-1984. The petitioners bad filed their nomination forms for contesting” the election from various wards of. the said Gram Panchayat before the last date prescribed for filing the nomination forms. On 28-3-1984 when respon-dent No. 2 proceeded to scrutinise the nomination forms, an objection was raised to the validity of candidature of 14 of the candidates including the present nine petitioners on the ground that they were disqualified since they had not paid the tax of the Gram Panchayat within three months from the date of demand as provided by clause (h) of section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was contended by the petitioners before respondent No. 2 fhat they had paid the tax to the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat on 23-3-1984 i. e. prior to the last date prescribed for filing the nomination forms. They produced the receipts issued by the Administrator before respondent No. 2 in support of their contention that they had paid the tax due from them. Respoodent No. 2 in order to hold an inquiry with regard to the payment of tax by the petitioners and others posted the matter to 29-3-1984 on which day the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was present and the Admintstrator also attended the inquiry. Respondent No. 2 recorded the statement of the Administrator, who admitted to have received the pay-ment of tax by the petitioners and others. However, it seems that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat made a statement that the tax was due from the petitioners. Relying on the certificate which had been submitted by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat before respondent No. 2 to the effect that the petitioners had not paid the tax, respondent No. 2 held that the petitioners and other candidates had incurred disqualification and on this ground he rejected their nomination papers. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners allege that they belong to one group and were to contest the election as one panel and the group which was competing with the group of the petitioners was a politically influential group and the said group managed to see that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was not available in the village from 20-3-1984 onwards so that the petitioners could not pay their dues till the last date prescribed for filing the nomina- tion forms. In this situation they approached the Administrator personally and paid the dues to him after obtaining the receipts from him. Thus according to the petitioners, they having paid the tax prior to the last date prescribed for filing nomination forms were not disqualified from contest- ing the election, and hence the order passed by respondent No. 2 was not correct. 3. The writ petition is contested by respondent No. 2. In his return he admits the fact that the petitioners had paid the arrears of tax to the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat and that the receipts for such pay- ment had also been produced before him during the inquiry in the scrutiny proceedings. However, according to him, the date of filing the nomination papers was from 19-3-1984 to 27-3-1984 and since the payment had been made on 23-3-1984 such payment did not absolve the petitioners from the disqualification incurred by them as they could not take recourse to clause (i) of explanation 2 to section 14 of the Act. He further submits that since the payment of tax by the petitioner is not evidenced with the prescribed receipts, such payment cannot be deemed within the meaning of clause (h) of section 14 and hence also the disqualification continued till the date of scrutiny. 4. A few provisions of the Act and the Rules need to be noted in order to appreciate rival contentions of the parties to this petition. Clause (h) of section 14 of the Act provides that no person shall be member of a Panchayat or continue as such, who fails to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him. Clause (i) of explanation 2 to section 14 provides that for the purpose of clause (h) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or lee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates. Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960 lays down that the tax shall be recovered by the Sarpanch or by any other person duly authorised by the Panchayat in this behalf. A receipt for every such pay-ment shall be given by the person receiving it. 5. Section 145 of the Act empowers the State Government to dissolve or supersede a Panchayat in given circumstances. Sub-section (2) of sec- tion 145 provides for the consequences which ensue on dissolution or super-session of a Panchayat. Clause (b) thereof provides that all powers, and duties of the Panchayat shall, during the period of dissolution or super- session, be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may, from time to time, appoint in that behalf. Such a person appointed by the State Government has come to be known as Administrator in common parlance. Sub-section (1) of section 38 lays down that the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provi- sions of the Act and the resolutions passed by a Panchayat vests in the Sarpanch who shall be directly responsible for the due fulfilment of the duties* imposed upon the Panchayat by or under the Act. These are the provisions of law in the background of which we have to deal with the question which arises for consideration in this petition. 6. The first question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whe-ther payment of taxes to the Administrator is a valid payment to the Gram Panchayat. As pointed out above, on his appointment the Administrator exercises and performs all powers and duties of the Panchayat. As seen above under sub-section (1) of section 28 the executive power for the pur-pose of carrying out the provisions of the Act vests in the Sarpanch. This power read with rule 20 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules would show that as an executive head it is the duty of the Sar-panch to recover taxes and pass receipt for payment of the same. This power read with rule 20 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules would show that as an executive head it is the duty of the Sar-panch to recover taxes and pass receipt for payment of the same. Now since the Administrator exercises and performs all the powers and functions of the Panchayat including the functions which are vested in the Sarpanch under rule 20, on supersession of Gram Panchayat and appointment of Administrator it would be his duty to recover tax and pass a receipt for its payment, unless he authorises somebody else to perform his duty. 7. Conning to the facts of the present case, it is. an admitted position that the petitioners had paid the tax to the Administrator on 23-3-1984 and the latter had issued receipts in respect of this payment. In view of what we have said above, payment of tax by the petitioners to the Admini- strator would l be a valid payment to the Gram Panchayat. The fact whe- ther the amount which had been paid by the petitioners to the Administra- tor had not been accounted for by him in the accounts of the Panchayat till 25-3-1984 is not at all relevant for the purpose of application of clause (i) of explanation 2 to section 14 of the Act. That clause merely requires that the candidate pays the amount of tax prior to the date pres- cribed for nomination of candidates and if he pays the tax to the Admini- strator and if ibis payment is valid, the fact that the Administrator has not accounted for the amount in the books of the Pancbayat would be irrele- vant for this clause. In our view, therefore, the Returning Officer was not right in rejecting the explanation set forth on behalf of the petitioners that they had made the payment of the tax to the Administrator. 8. The next question which requires to be considered is as to what is the material date before which a candidate who intends to contest the election has to pay the arrears of tax in order to absolve himself of the disqualification contained in clause (h) of section 14 and as provided in clause (i) of explanation 2 to that section. The next question which requires to be considered is as to what is the material date before which a candidate who intends to contest the election has to pay the arrears of tax in order to absolve himself of the disqualification contained in clause (h) of section 14 and as provided in clause (i) of explanation 2 to that section. Now as seen above this clause says that a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due prior to the day prescribed for nomination of candidates. The Returning Officer is of the view that since the nomina- tion forms were accepted from 15-3-1984 the date for nomination of candi- dates is that date and not the last date on which the nomination forms could be accepted under the programme declared by the Tahsildar under rule 7 of the Rules. Now the phrase 'the day prescribed for the nomina-tion of candidates” is not defined anywhere in the Act or the Rules and has not been explained anywhere therein. These words have, therefore to be understood in the context of the Rules. The relevant rule for our purpose is rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 as amended “with effect from 25-1-1972. Now under sub-rule (I) of this rule the Tahsildar has to appoint certain dates relating to the programme for elec-tion. Perusal of this sub-rule would show that it does not require the Tahsildar to fix a date on which acceptance of nomination forms would commence. What is required by this sub-rule is that the Tahsildar should appoint the last date for making nomination. Even clauses (b) and (d) refer to the last date for making nomination. It is pertinent to note that this sub-rule or for the matter of that rule 7 itself does not require the Tahsildar to fix any date for commencement of acceptance of nomination forms. What is required to be fixed by him is the last date for accepting the nomination form. Hence the day referred to in clause (i) of explana-tion 2 to section 14 read in the context of rule 7 could only mean the last date for filing the nomination forms. What is required to be fixed by him is the last date for accepting the nomination form. Hence the day referred to in clause (i) of explana-tion 2 to section 14 read in the context of rule 7 could only mean the last date for filing the nomination forms. If that is so, the payment of tax by the petitioners on 23-3-1984 would satisfy clause (i) of explanation 2 inasmuch as the last date for making nominations was 27-3-1984 and the payment admittedly has been made, on 23-3-1984 i.e. prior to the last day for making the nomination. 9. In view of what we have said above, therefore, the Returning Officer was in error in rejecting the nomination forms of the petitioners on the ground that they were disqualified under clause (h) of section 14 of the Act. The said order has, therefore, to be quashed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 1 Returning Officer on 29-3-1984 rejecting the nomination forms of the petitioner is hereby quashed and he is directed to permit the petitioners to contest the election as validly nominated candidates. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. ----