JUDGMENT - Jahagirdar R.A., J.: - This petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contested the Village Panchayat Election of Village Mangle in Shirala Taluka of Sangli District. They contested the elections for one of the reserved seats in Ward No. 5 of the said village. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 14th of March, 1984, by which date the petitioners and the other contesting candidates filed their nomination papers. On the date of scrutiny, namely on 16th of March, 1984, it was found that the nomination paper of the first respondent did not bear his signature nor his thumb impression as required by Rule 8 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 and Form 'A' thereunder. Therefore, his nomination paper was rejected and in the elections that were held on 31st March, 1984, the petitioners were declared elected. 2. The first respondent filed an election petition, being Election Petition No. 6 of 1984, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Islampur. By his judgment and order dated 7th of October, 1985, the learned Civil Judge allowed the petition by holding that the Returning Officer, who is respondent No. 6 in this petition, was in error in not obtaining the thumb impression of the first respondent on the nomination paper. The learned Civil Judge thought that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to see that the nomination paper was complete in all respects, especially in so far as the signature or the thumb impression of the candidate is concerned. It is this order of the learned Civil Judge that is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Pradhan, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, had no difficulty in showing that the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge is wholly inconsistent with the express language of Rule 8 and Form 'A' thereunder. Mr. Pradhan argued, and I have no hesitation in upholding this argument, that the learned Civil Judge has read into the said rule a duty on the part of the Returning Office which is totally unwarranted by the language of that rule. Mr. Pradhan argued, and I have no hesitation in upholding this argument, that the learned Civil Judge has read into the said rule a duty on the part of the Returning Office which is totally unwarranted by the language of that rule. Before examining the correctness of the view taken by the learned Civil Judge, it would be advantageous to notice what exactly weighed with the learned Civil Judge, while setting aside the election of the petitioners was argued before the learned Civil Judge on behalf of the first respondent that the first respondent had brought to the notice of the Returning Officer that he had not put his thumb impression on the nomination paper and the Returning Officer should obtain the same from him. The learned Civil Judge held that this was a clear improvement made by the first respondent and such a case had not been made out in the election petition filed by him. 4. However, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to examine the question as to whether it was the duty of the Returning Office, especially in the case of an illiterate candidate, to see that the nomination paper bore the thumb impression of the candidate. According to the learned Civil Judge, there was such a duty cast upon the Returning Officer by the language of the rule. If in the instant case the Returning Officer did not himself satisfy at the time of accepting the nomination paper that it bore the thumb impression of the first respondent, then there was a breach of the statutory duty cast upon him. The effect of such a breach of statutory duty should not result in the rejection of the nomination paper of the first respondent. According to the learned Civil Judge, the failure of the Returning Officer to satisfy himself that the nomination paper of the first respondent bore his signature or the thumb impression went to the root of the validity of the election. Therefore the election was liable to be set aside and was accordingly set aside by the learned Civil Judge. 5. I am now called upon to examine whether the view of the learned Civil Judge is correct looking to the language of Rule 8 of the Village Panchayat Election Rules. Therefore the election was liable to be set aside and was accordingly set aside by the learned Civil Judge. 5. I am now called upon to examine whether the view of the learned Civil Judge is correct looking to the language of Rule 8 of the Village Panchayat Election Rules. The said rule provides that on the day appointed for the nomination of candidates, each candidate shall make an application in writing in Form 'A' signed by him and present it either in person or through a representative authorised in writing in this behalf by such candidate to the Returning Officer signifying his willingness to serve as a member of the panchayat. On receipt of such nomination paper the Returning Officer is required to write on the nomination paper its serial number and also to issue thereon a certificate stating the date on which and exact time at which the application was delivered to him. The nomination form, namely Form 'A' itself mentions that the name of the ward for which the candidate is nominated, full name of the candidate, his sex and address and other particulars as mentioned in the said form shall be given. The signature of the candidate is to be made at the foot of this form. The date on which and the time at which the nomination paper was delivered to the Returning Officer are to be mentioned. The bottom part of this form is a receipt which is to be signed by the Returning Officer and handed over to the candidate or to the person presenting the nomination paper on behalf of a particular candidate. From this entire rule and Form 'A' I do not see any provision to the effect that it is the duty of the Returning Officer to see that the nomination paper is complete in all its respects including the signature of the candidate. Apart from the total absence of a language indicating such a duty on the part of the Returning Officer, one must also on a priori reasoning hold that such a duty is not cast upon the Returning Officer, because there is a different date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers and it is on that day that the Returning Officer has to scrutinise the nomination paper to see whether they are in accordance with the rule and the form prescribed under the rule. In fact if the Returning Officer is asked to scrutinise the nomination papers on the same day on which they are presented, he will, in my opinion, be exceeding his jurisdiction because the stage of scrutinising the nomination papers is yet to arrive and till that stage is arrived the Returning Officer cannot scrutinise the nomination papers. 6. Mr. Palekar, the learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent, has placed great reliance upon the Explanation to Rule 8. This Explanation, which has been added to Rule 8 by an amendment made on 31-5-1973, is in following terms:- “A person who is unable to write his name shall be deemed to have duly signed the nomination paper if he has placed a mark or thumb impression in the presence of the Returning Officer or any other officer authorised by the Returning Officer in this behalf and such officer on being satisfied as to the identity of that person, has attested the mark or thumb impression as the mark of thumb impression of that person.” According to Mr. Palekar, when a candidate is an illiterate person such as the first respondent in the present case, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to see that the candidate places a mark or a thumb impression in his presence and it is also the duty of the Returning Officer to satisfy himself about the identity of the candidate who is placing such mark or thumb impression in his presence. It is impossible to accept this interpretation being given by Mr. Palekar to the Explanation. The Explanation deals only with a situation where a candidate is not able to put his signature on Form 'A' as required by the said form. In such a case the person who is unable to write his name is allowed to place a mark or thumb impression, which he shall do in the presence of the Returning Officer. If, however, such a candidate is rash enough or negligent enough to hand over his nomination paper to the Returning Officer without putting a mark or his thumb impression, then it is not the duty of the Returning Officer to point out the defect in the form to the candidate concerned. If, however, such a candidate is rash enough or negligent enough to hand over his nomination paper to the Returning Officer without putting a mark or his thumb impression, then it is not the duty of the Returning Officer to point out the defect in the form to the candidate concerned. If a candidate wants to avail of the facility that is given by the Explanation then it is his duty to tell the Returning Officer to whom he is handing over the nomination paper that he is an illiterate person, that he want to make a mark or put his thumb impression on Form 'A', and that the Returning Officer should satisfy about his identity as required by the said Explanation. Since it is not the duty of the Returning Officer at the stage of accepting the nomination papers to scrutinise them to see whether they are complete in all respects, I do not see how even the Explanation, on which Mr. Palekar has placed reliance, can be said to impose such a duty on the Returning Officer. Neither the language of the said Explanation nor the general scope of Rule 8 of which the said Explanation forms a part is capable of giving rise to such an inference. The reasoning of the learned Civil Judge, therefore, is incorrect. It is wholly opposed to the language of Rule 8 read with Form 'A'. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge, therefore, discloses a patent error of law calling for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur, on 7th October, 1985 in Election Petition No. 6 of 1984 is set aside. The petitioner's election to Ward No. 5 is upheld. The first respondent shall pay the cost of this petition to the petitioners. Petition allowed. ------