S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is a resident of village Delavada situated in Surat district and who is a voter for the election to the Delavda Gram Panchayat has challenged the proposed re-election to the said Gram Panchayat which was to be held on 12-11-1984. The last general election took place in 1979. The petitioner was elected as a member on the reserved seat of scheduled caste. The term of the Gram Panchayat was to be over on 1-7-1984. However the same was extended upto 30-11-1984 by an order of the Collector Surat. In the mean-while fresh elections were sought to be held and that is why election notice was sought to be published. The election programme for the same was sought to be published in the village pursuant to the notice issued by the election officer and Additional Mamlatdar and ALT Choryasi Surat on 28-9-1984. A copy of the said notice is at Annexure A to the petition. The said notice reads that election to the Gram Panchayat was to be held on 12-11-1984. The aforesaid notice in proforma. A was sent to the Talati Delavda. That was to be published on the Chora of the village or the Panchayat office for a continuous period of three days i. e. 5th October to 7th October 1984 and that notice was also to be published by beat of drum in the village. The Talati of the Gram Panchayat was directed to give a report to that effect. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that notice for election in form A as mentioned in the letter at Annexure A was never published at any place for information of the voters. The petitioner however came to know that dates for receiving nominations were fixed on 8th 9 and 10th October 1984. How-ever nobody was informed about the programme as the same was never published. The Sarpanch had never published the letter at Annexure A at any time. The voters were therefore deprived of the opportunity to submit their nominations. The petitioner wanted to contest at the said election as Sarpanch. However the petitioner could not submit his nomination in the absence of publication of the afore-said election programme. The Sarpanch had never published the letter at Annexure A at any time. The voters were therefore deprived of the opportunity to submit their nominations. The petitioner wanted to contest at the said election as Sarpanch. However the petitioner could not submit his nomination in the absence of publication of the afore-said election programme. It is further the case of the petitioner that other voters were also deprived of their valuable rights of contesting at the election. The petitioner further submits that the Sarpanch in collusion with the Talati-cum-Mantri had submitted nomination of his son Vijaybhai Shantibhai Patel as Sarpanch. Three nominations from wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 were filed up at the instance of the Sarpanch. The said nominations were of scheduled tribe members from wards Nos. 7 and 8 and scheduled caste member from ward No. 6. Thus elections from wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 went uncontested. The petitioners further case is that on account of non-publication of the election notice no nominations from wards Nos. 1 2 3 4 and 5 could be filed up and the result was that there was no election whatsoever from these wards. ( 3 ) MR. H. L. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner raised a solitary contention in support of the petition. He submitted that election notice at Annexure A which was sent to the Talati-cum-Mantri by the election authority on 28 was not duly published in accordance with the requirement of Rule 7 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayat Election Rules 1962 (the Rules for short) and hence due publicity was not given to the election programme as a result of which the entire election process failed. Consequently election held pursuant to the election notice at Annexure A is required to be quashed in toto and fresh election is required to be ordered. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance on this count a few relevant facts may be glanced at. The election notice at Annexure A in form No. 1 was duly sent by the election authority to the Talati-cum-Mantri by his letter dated 28-9-1984. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance on this count a few relevant facts may be glanced at. The election notice at Annexure A in form No. 1 was duly sent by the election authority to the Talati-cum-Mantri by his letter dated 28-9-1984. It in terms directs the Talati-cum-Mantri to publish the election notice for a continuous period of three days from 5th to 7th October 1984 in the village by beat of drum and also to publish it on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat office or on the Panchayat Chora and that a report to that effect was to be sent by the Talati to the election authority on 8th October 1984 According to the petitioner the directions contained in the letter of the election authority have been observed in breach and there was no publicity given to the election programme for continuously three days from 5th to 7th October 1984 in the village nor was the election programme published by beat of drum. In support of the aforesaid contentions Mr. Patel placed reliance on the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules. As per Section 17 (1) of the Act the term of the Panchayat is five years from the date of its first meeting. As per sub-section (3) of Section 17 on the expiry of the term under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) as the case may be the Panchayat shall be reconstituted. As per Section 18 of the Act the election of members to the Panchayat shall be held on such date as the election authority may appoint in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides that such election shall be conducted in the prescribed manner. As per Section 2 (24) the term prescribed means prescribed by rules. Thus election to the Gram Panchayat has to be made as per the prescribed rules. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 323 the Gujarat Government had made rules named and styled as Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules 1962 These rules lay down the procedure for holding such election. Rule 7 of the rules is relevant for the present purpose. It is therefore extracted in extenso as under:" (1) The election authority shall by notification in the Official Gazette notify the date of election appointed by him under sub-section (1) of Section 18. Rule 7 of the rules is relevant for the present purpose. It is therefore extracted in extenso as under:" (1) The election authority shall by notification in the Official Gazette notify the date of election appointed by him under sub-section (1) of Section 18. (A) Three consecutive dates for making nominations so however that there shall be an interval of at least seven clear days between the first of such dates and the date of publication of such notification. PROVIDED that if any of such three consecutive dates is a public holiday such date shall be ignored while appointing such three dates; (B) The date time and place for the scrutiny of nominations so however that such date shall be the day immediately following the last date fixed for making nominations or if that day is a public holiday the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (C) The last date for the withdrawal of candidatures which shall be the seventh day after the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations or if that day is a public holiday the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (D) The date on which a poll shall if necessary be taken which shall be a date not earlier than the twentieth day after the last date fixed for the withdrawal of candidatures; (E) The hours during which and the place or places at which the poll shall be taken provided that the total period on any one day for polling at the election shall not be less than eight hours. (F) The date for the counting of votes. (3) A notification under sub-rule (2) shall be published in the Gram or Nagar as the case may be by affixing copies thereof at the village Chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat and at such other place if any as the election authority thinks fit. (4) As soon as a notification under sub-rule (2) is published the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form A inviting nominations of candidates for such election and specifying the place at which the nomination papers are to be delivered. (4) As soon as a notification under sub-rule (2) is published the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form A inviting nominations of candidates for such election and specifying the place at which the nomination papers are to be delivered. The notice shall be published in the Gram or Nagar concerned by affixing copies thereof at the village Chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat and at another place if any as the election authority thinks fit. (A) The election authority shall also cause to be published in the Gram or Nagar concerned details about the notice under this sub-rule as well as about the notification under sub-rule (2) by a proclamation which shall be made by beat of drum at any time between 7 a. m. to 9 p. m. for three consecutive days immediately preceding the first of the three dates fixed for the nomination of candidates. As per Rule 7 (4) (a) the election authority has to cause details of the notice of election to be published in the Nagar or Gram concerned by proclamation which shall be made by beat of drum at any time between 7 a. m. and 9 p. m. for three consecutive days immediately preceding the first of the three dates fixed for the nomination of candidates. These procedural rules have been enacted for a salutory purpose. The intention of the rule making authority is to see that election programme and the details regarding the time-table pertaining to various stages of election are made public to the maximum extent so that any member of the public who is a voter and who desires to contest election can get an opportunity to file his nomination. Election is a democratic process which permeats the entire society. It is socio-political experiment which takes in its sweep all the residents of the village who are voters in the given constituency. Such a democratic process would get thwarted it due publicity is not given to the election programme. Mr. Patel relying on the aforesaid procedural provisions strongly urged that in the present case unfortunately the elect on process has failed due to non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 7 (2) (3) and (4) and consequently the proposed election in the light of the election notice at Annexure A has got vitiated. Mr. Patel relying on the aforesaid procedural provisions strongly urged that in the present case unfortunately the elect on process has failed due to non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 7 (2) (3) and (4) and consequently the proposed election in the light of the election notice at Annexure A has got vitiated. To recapitulate the petitioners main grievance is that pursuant to the notice at Annexure A election programme was not published in the village for three days from 5th to 7th October 1984 by the Talati. No publication was made by beat of drum as enjoined upon by Rule 7 (4) (a ). The aforesaid submission made by Mr. Patel in the light of the averments made on oath in the petition has been tried to be controverted by the Talati by filing his affidavit-in-reply. It is therefore necessary to see the other side of the picture which is sought to be put forward in the reply affidavit by the Talati. In para 4 of the affidavit it is stated that Annexure A alongwith the election notice was published by him at Panchayat office on 5th 6 and 7th October 1984 respectively and the election programme was also published at the Panchayat office on 26th September 1984 It is further submitted that when the Annexure A along with the election notice was published by him on 5th October 1984 in the presence of several residents and at the time of publishing the said annexure along with the election notice he had taken the signatures of those residents who were present at the time of publication. A copy of the writing dated 5-10-1984 to that effect has been produced along with the affidavit-in-reply. It shows that some signatories had given it in writing on 5-10-1984 by way of a certificate that the election notice dated 28-9-1984 in proforma was published from the Panchayat office. So far as the Sarpanch of the Panchayat respondent No. 3 is concerned he has filed his affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner. He has stated that no persons were available in the Delavada Gram Panchayat or village for making such publication by the beat of drums. No such publication by the beat of drum was made between 5 and 7-10-84 as directed in Annexure A and that the notice at Annexure A was never published at the Panchayat office by the Talati-cum-Mantri. He has stated that no persons were available in the Delavada Gram Panchayat or village for making such publication by the beat of drums. No such publication by the beat of drum was made between 5 and 7-10-84 as directed in Annexure A and that the notice at Annexure A was never published at the Panchayat office by the Talati-cum-Mantri. In short respondent No. 3 has whole-heartedly supported the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid state of pleadings between the parties it appears to me that here arises a highly disputed question as to whether notice at Annexure A was duly published as per the procedural requirement of Rule 7. How-ever one aspect of the matter appears to be uncontroverted. The petitioner in terms stated on oath that notice at Annexure A was not published by beat of drum for three days as required by the rules and even as per the direction contained in the letter of the election authority to the Talati on 28-9-1984. The Talati who has filed his affidavit-in-reply curiously enough has not controverted this averment at all. In fact he has totally bypassed this averment in the petition. He merely stated that the election programme was published for three days at the Panchayat office and for that purpose he sought support of the certificate given in writing to him by some residents. But it is neither here nor there. He has not at all controverted the averment in the petition that the election programme was not published for three days by beat of drum. On the contrary the Sarpanch has in terms stated in his affidavit supporting the petitioner that no such publication was done by the beat of drum. In this state of pleadings between the parties it can certainly be assumed that the election programme was not published by beat of drum in the village for three days as required by the notice at Annexure A as well as by Rule 7 (4) (a ). This fact remains an uncontroverted fact on the record of this case. It must therefore be held that the proposed election pursuant to the notice at Annexure A suffers from non-compliance with the procedural provisions of Rule 7 (4) (a ). This finding can be reached on uncontroverted facts of this case. This fact remains an uncontroverted fact on the record of this case. It must therefore be held that the proposed election pursuant to the notice at Annexure A suffers from non-compliance with the procedural provisions of Rule 7 (4) (a ). This finding can be reached on uncontroverted facts of this case. ( 5 ) STILL however the next question which remains to be answered is as to what is the effect of the aforesaid finding on the result of the election. Mr. Divetia for the respondent authorities informed me that direct election to the post of Sarpanch was held on 12-11-84 as scheduled and about 85% votes were polled though of course they have not been counted pursuant to the interim order of this court. So far as un-contested candidates from reserved seats in wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 are concerned Mr. Divetia informed me on instructions that there were two nominations in the field in ward No. 6 out of whom one had withdrawn and the other candidate returned victor as uncontested; while from wards Nos. 7 and 8 there was no possibility of contest because only a single candidate filed his nomination for each of these wards and consequently for these three reserved seats from these wards three candidates have been returned uncontested though their declaration of result is deferred. On these facts it was submitted by Mr. Divetia for the respondent authorities that despite non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 7 (4) (a) it cannot be said that the result of the election to the post of Sarpanch as well as election from the concerned wards was in any way materially affected. Consequently this court may not interfere with the election held on 12-11-1984 even though procedural non-compliance with Rule 7 (4) (a) might have taken place on the facts of the case. In order to appreciate this submission made by the learned counsel for the concerned respondents it is necessary to keep in view two Sections of the Act. Consequently this court may not interfere with the election held on 12-11-1984 even though procedural non-compliance with Rule 7 (4) (a) might have taken place on the facts of the case. In order to appreciate this submission made by the learned counsel for the concerned respondents it is necessary to keep in view two Sections of the Act. Section 19 lays down that if for any reason an election does not result in the return of the required number of qualified persons willing to take office then in the case of a Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat the District Panchayat or the competent authority until the District Panchayat is duly constituted for the first time in the case of a Taluka Panchayat or District Panchayat the competent authority shall as soon as possible appoint from persons qualified to be elected such persons as are necessary to make up the required number and the persons so appointed shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the relevant Panchayat. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 provides that where two-thirds or more of the total number of members required to be elected are elected failure to elect the remaining members shall not affect the constitution of the relevant Panchayat. Placing reliance on these provisions. Mr. Divetia submitted that even though no election took place of candidates from Wards Nos. 1 to 5 as there was no contestant from these wards reconstituted Panchayat can still function as uncontested candidates from wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 as well as the Sarpanch can work along with five nominated persons who can be nominated by the competent authority from wards Nos. 1 to 5 as per provision of Section 19 (1) (b ). Reliance placed by Mr. Divetia on Section 19 does not assist him on the facts of this case. Section 19 contemplates a valid election which may not result in return of required number of qualified persons willing to take office. If the process of election has been gone through without any flaw and there is nothing wrong With the election process as such and still from a given ward no candidate is returned as there was no valid nomination the question of appointing suitable person to fill up the vacancy from the given ward would survive. If the process of election has been gone through without any flaw and there is nothing wrong With the election process as such and still from a given ward no candidate is returned as there was no valid nomination the question of appointing suitable person to fill up the vacancy from the given ward would survive. In the present case as found on facts it is clear that the election in question was vitiated by non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Rule 7 (4) (a ). That election was not therefore a proper and valid election. Consequently no question would arise of the competent authority being entitled to appoint five members to represent the concerned five wards viz. wards Nos. 1 to 5. ( 6 ) THAT takes me to the consideration of Section 24 of the Act. That Section deals with determination of validity of election and the inquiry to be held by a Judge mentioned therein who has to entertain and decide election petition filed under that provision. Section 24 (2a) is relevant for the present purpose. It is therefore extracted as under: If the validity of the election is brought in question only on the ground of any error by the Officer or Officers charged with carrying out the rules made under sub-section (6) of Section 21c or any other rules made under Section 323 or an irregularity or infirmity not corruptly caused the Judge shall not set aside the election. Explanation: The expression error in this sub-section does not include any breach of or any omission to carry out or any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder whereby the result of the election has been materially affected A conjoint reading of Section 24 (2a) and the explanation thereof leaves no room for doubt that even if ultimately election petition is filed before a competent court challenging the election of gram panchayat on the ground that there was any error or irregularity in the election process the Judge would not be able to set aside the election unless it is shown that the result of the election was materially affected by that irregularity or error. If in the election petition itself a mere procedural error would not entitle the learned Judge to set aside the election without finding that the result of the election was materially affected by such error or irregularity much less can I set aside the election on the ground that there was procedural irregularity or error without finding that such error has materially affected the result of the election. It is true that exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution I am not sitting as election Judge hearing election petition under Section 24. But the same guidelines which the legislature has indicated for being followed by the court hearing election petitions when called upon to set aside election on the ground of error or irregularity can properly be pressed in service while deciding validity of such election by way of petitions under Article 226 as the grievance made by the petitioner and the relief claimed in such proceedings would be operating in the same field. Now it must be noted at this stage that it has not been the case that error or irregularity in the procedure was corruptly caused by any one. This is not the allegation of the petitioner. Therefore non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Rule 7 (4) (a) must be treated to be error or irregularity committed by the concerned officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act and the rules. Such error or irregularity cannot be pressed in service by the petitioner to invaliditate the election unless the petitioner further demonstrates that the result of the election was materially affected on account of such error or irregularity. Even on this aspect there is a decison of this court which would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Kanchanlal v. Keki Rustomji 24 (2) G. L. R. 1377 ( = 1983 GLH 846 ) this court was concerned with a parallel scheme for challenging election to local authorities governed by the Gujarat Municipalitis Act 1964 Election to Gujarat Municipalities can be challenged by way of election petitions under Section 14 of the said Act. In the case of Kanchanlal v. Keki Rustomji 24 (2) G. L. R. 1377 ( = 1983 GLH 846 ) this court was concerned with a parallel scheme for challenging election to local authorities governed by the Gujarat Municipalitis Act 1964 Election to Gujarat Municipalities can be challenged by way of election petitions under Section 14 of the said Act. Section 14 (7) of the said Act provided that if the validity of the election is brought in question only on the ground of any error by the officer or officers charged with carrying out the rules made under sub-section (5) of Section 6 or of an irregularity or infirmity not corrupply caused the judge shall not set aside the election. The explanation to sub-section (7) of Section 14 reads as under:"the expression error in this clause does not include any breach of or any omission to carry out or any noncompliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder whereby the result of the election has been materially affected". It is therefore seen that the scheme of Section 14 read with the explanation in the said Act is pari materia with the scheme of Section 24 (2a) of the present Act read with the explanation thereof. The question before N. H. Bhatt J. in Kanchanlals case (supra) was as to whether the election authority had committed an error in demarcation of wards before holding election to the concerned municipality. The court held that there was illegality committed in the demarcation of wards under Section 7 (2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and such challenges cannot be entertained in an election petition and there-fore a writ petition can lie challenging demarcation or wards. Still however drawing analogy from the provision of Section 14 (7) N. H. Bhatt J. held that peripheral changes made here or there though in violation of the requirement of law cannot be allowed to upset a costly and elaborate procedure of an election and the election will not be set aside merely on account of the finding reached by the court that there were certain illegalities committed in demarcation of wards in the absence of further finding that such irregularity or illegality had materially affected the result of election. In this connection the following pertinent observations were made by N. H. Bhatt J. "the question as to whether for want of any legal provision in regard the non-compliance with the negative requirement of Section 7 (2) of the Act can go to vitiate the election the general principls of law evolved by judicial precedents should be a guiding factor. There may be cases where the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 7 (2) may be so extensive as to lead to an irresistible inference that the election itself has become polluted. The possible situation arising out of such large scale reshuffling of wards can-not be ruled out. At the same time it is to be noted with pertinence that peripheral changes made here or there though in violation of the requirement of law cannot be allowed to upset a costly and elaborate procedure of an election. In other words it shall be for the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court to show that non-compliance with the requirement of Section 7 (2) of the Act is such as has factually resulted into vitiating the election". On facts it was held that there was no allegation that the changes made in the consitution of wards had been so sweeping as to make the subsequent voters lists and the election process a mockery. The petitioners had not said so either expressly or by plausible implication. It was therefore held that unless material prejudice is shown to have been caused because of non-compliance with some requirement in the pre-election stage or the electoral stage the intricate costly and elaborate election should not be set at naught. I entirely agree with the reasoning employed in the aforesaid decision. In fact the ratio of the said decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case wherein I am concerned with a parallel scheme of Section 24 read with the explanation. The petitioner therefore will have to show that the result of the election from the given wards has been materially affected on account of non-compliance with Rule 7 (4) (a) meaning thereby that as the election programme was not published by beat of drum for three consecutive days by the Talati the result of the election had got materially effected. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated. .