RABARI KALUBHAI VALABHAI v. STATE — 1988 DIGILAW 176 (GUJ)

P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Special Civil Application No. 554 of 1981 has come forward with a prayer for quashing the election of the second respondent as President of Deesa Taluka Panchayat held on 24/02/1981 and also for issue of a writ of quo warranto calling upon the respondent to show the authorities or legal provisions under which he is occupying the office of the President of Taluka Panchayat Deesa. The short facts for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case are as follows: ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was elected as a member of Deesa Taluka Panchayat in the general election held in the month of February 1981. The Deesa Taluka Panchayat consists of 26 elected members. Respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as the Presiding Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act for the purpose of presiding over the meeting held for election of the President and Vice-President of the Taluka Panchayat under Sec. 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The Taluka Development Officer who in the respondent No. 5 in this Special Civil Application issued notice dated 13/02/1981 for the purchase of holding meeting for the election of the President and Vice-President of Taluka Panchayat The said notice which is Annexure `a to the Special Civil Application inter alia states that the election of the President and Vice-President will be held in the meeting to be held on 24/02/1981 from 11. 00 a. m. to 2. 00 p. m. and that the intending candidate for the election of the President and Vice-President should submit the nomination paper not later than 23/02/1981 between 11 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. and that the said nomination papers will be scrutinised at 2. 00 p. m. on the same day. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and others filled-in the nomination forms for the post of President of the Deesa Taluka Panchayat on 23/02/1981 and filed the same. The election was held and in that 25 voters exercised their franchise. One vote having been rejected there was equality of votes. As per Sec. 55 (5) of the Panchayat Act the result of the election was decided by lot drawn and picked up by a child. In that respondent No. 2 came out successfully. The election was held and in that 25 voters exercised their franchise. One vote having been rejected there was equality of votes. As per Sec. 55 (5) of the Panchayat Act the result of the election was decided by lot drawn and picked up by a child. In that respondent No. 2 came out successfully. ( 3 ) THE election of respondent No 2 is being questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of Rule 6 are clearly ultra vires of Sec. 55 of Gujarat Panchayats Act and that therefore the election held under such void rule is also void and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Elaborating this submission the petitioner has stated that Sec. 55 (4) states that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. Hence according to the petitioner the scrutiny and election have to be finalised in the meeting convened for the purpose of electing the President and Vice-President as per Sec. 55 (4) and since the Rule 6 of the Act directs the filing of the nomination on the date immediately preceding the date of the meeting the said rule is ultra vires Sec. 55 (4 ). ( 4 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 571 of 1981 the petitioner prays for issue of a writ or mandamus or any other direction to quash the election of the respondent No. 2 as Presidents of Hansot Taluka Panchayat held on 24/02/1981 Alternatively a prayer to issue of quo warranto is asked for calling upon the respondent No. 2 to lodge information with this Court showing the authority under which he is holding the office of the President of Hansot Taluka Panchayat. ( 5 ) THE short facts of this case are that the respondent No. 3 has issued a notice in Form No. A under Rule 4 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (President and Vice-President) Election Rules calling the meeting of the said Panchayat on 24/02/1981 at 12 Oclock-for the purpose of election of the President and Vice-President. In that notice it is stated that the nomination paper should be filled-in on the previous day between 11. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. and that the scrutiny there of will be held on the same day at 3. In that notice it is stated that the nomination paper should be filled-in on the previous day between 11. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. and that the scrutiny there of will be held on the same day at 3. 00 p. m. The petitioner who was desirous of contesting the election inquired at the meeting held on 24/02/1981 as to whether he could fill in the nomination form on that day. The Secretary and the Taluka Development Officer informed him that no form could be filled-in on the date of election since it ought to have been submitted one day earlier. Hence the petitioner was not able to contest the election of the President of Hansot Taluka Panchayat. In the election held on 24/02/1981 all the 15 members of the Taluka Panchayat were present. In that election respondent No. 2 was declared elected as President of the Hansot Taluka Panchayat since he secured majority of votes. Just like in the previous petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 554 of 1981 the petitioner herein questions the election on the very same grounds. ( 6 ) IN the abovesaid two Special Civil Applications rule was issued and the Division Bench of the High Court after refusing the interim relief observed:"in our opinion the decision in Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973 decided on 22/23-3-1973 in the context of Rule 6 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act which is in pari materia requires to be reconsidered. We therefore refer this matter to the larger Bench. Thus both these matters have come up before this Full Bench. " ( 7 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973 three elected Councilors of the Nadiad Municipality raised a question as regards the validity of the election to the office of the President and Vice-President respectively of the said Municipality held on 24/02/1973 At the said election respondents Nos. 5 and 7 in that case were elected as President and Vice-President respectively. The election was questioned on the ground that nomination papers for contesting the election to the aforesaid offices were not allowed to be filed after the expiry of the specified time of two hours immediately preceding the time fixed for the convening of the meeting. 5 and 7 in that case were elected as President and Vice-President respectively. The election was questioned on the ground that nomination papers for contesting the election to the aforesaid offices were not allowed to be filed after the expiry of the specified time of two hours immediately preceding the time fixed for the convening of the meeting. As per Rule 6 of the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1964 the nomination papers were required to be delivered to the presiding officer not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for the election of a President. The petitioners therein had questioned the vires of the aforesaid Rule 6 of Municipal Election Rules and on the premise that the said Rule is invalid by reasons of its being in conflict with the requirement of Secs. 31 32 and 33 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 and contended that the election of the respondents Nos. 5 and 7 in that case to the office of the President and Vice-President of the Municipality respectively is illegal and void. ( 8 ) THE main question that were raised before that Bench in that case were: (1) whether Rule 6 of the (Municipal Election) Rules is illegal and ultra vires since it is inconsistent and conflicts with the provisions contained in Secs. 31 32 and 33 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act ? and (2) whether the election held on 24/02/1973 on the basis of the said Rule is illegal and void as contended by the petitioners ?sections 31 32 and 33 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 reads as follows:"31. A Municipalities shall be presided over by a President who shall be elected by the Councillors from among themselves in the manner prescribed by Rules made by the State Government. There shall be a Vice-President similarly elected for each Municipality. 32 (1) After a general election to a Municipality the Collector shall call the first general meeting of the Municipality for the determination of the term of office of the President and the Vice-President of the Municipality and for the election of the President and Vice-President. Such meeting shall be called within twenty-five days from the date on which the names of the Councillors of the Municipality were published in the Official Gazette under Sec. 6. (2) The meeting called under sub-sec. Such meeting shall be called within twenty-five days from the date on which the names of the Councillors of the Municipality were published in the Official Gazette under Sec. 6. (2) The meeting called under sub-sec. (1) shall be presided over by the Collector may by order in writing appoint in this behalf. The procedure of the meeting shall be as prescribed by Rules made by the State Government and the Collector or such officer shall have such powers as may be prescribed by the said Rules but shall not have the right to vote (3) No business other than the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice-President and the election of the President and the Vice-President shall be transacted at such meeting. 4) If in the election of the President or the Vice-President there is an equality of votes the result of the election shall be decided by lot to be drawn in the presence of the Collector or the officer presiding in such manner as the Collector or as the case only be the officer may determine. 33 the Save as otherwise provided in this a President or Vice-President shall hold his officer for such term as the Municipality shall previous to his election determine not being less than two years or the residue of the term of office of the Municipality whichever he less and not exceeding five years and he shall be eligible for re-election. PROVIDED that the term of office of such President or Vice-President shall be deemed to extend to and expire with the date on which his successor is elected. (2) If during his term of office under sub-sec. (1) the President or Vice-president ceases to be a Councillor he shall vacate the office held by him. (4) On the expiry of the term of office of Municipality the President and Vice-president shall continue to carry on the current administrative duties of their offices until such time as a new President and Vice-President shall have been elected and shall have taken over charge of their duties. (4) On the expiry of the term of office of Municipality the President and Vice-president shall continue to carry on the current administrative duties of their offices until such time as a new President and Vice-President shall have been elected and shall have taken over charge of their duties. "rule 6 of the original rule i. e. the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice-President Election Rules 1964 reads as follows:" 6 Nomination of candidates : Not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for the election of a President any Councillor of the Municipality may nominate any other Councillor for election as President and deliver to the Presiding Officer a nomination paper in Form A appended to these rules signed by himself as a proposer. "in that case the contention of the petitioners were that the expression election has been employed in Sec. 32 (3) in a wider cause and that covers from the date of filing of the nomination papers till the declaration of result. Hence the Rule 6 referred above which occurs in the Municipal Rules for election is in cannot with the requirement of the sections since it envisages filing of the nomination at least 2 hours before the time fixed for the election. On the other hand the contesting respondents bad canvassed the proposition that the expression election had been employed in the narrow sense that is to say it has been used to refer to the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no police. Interpreting Sec. 32 and (3) the Bench in that case observed that the election in that case is wider in concept and embraces the process of nomination as well as such the nomination must take place at the meeting. Continuing further the Bench observed:"this argument however ignores and overlooks the provision contained in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 32 which clearly provides indication that the Legislature intended that the entire process of election should take place at the meeting. No good reason is shown for taking the view that election in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 32 has been employed in a narrower sense. (3) of Sec. 32 which clearly provides indication that the Legislature intended that the entire process of election should take place at the meeting. No good reason is shown for taking the view that election in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 32 has been employed in a narrower sense. When it has been enacted that no business other than the determination of the term of office and the election to the office shall be transacted at such a meeting It would mean that the Legislature insisted upon these two businesses being transacted at the meeting and not before the meeting. If Eve ate right in the view that we are taking it is clear that the Legislature has prohibited the fixing of any of the stages of the election before the scheduled time for the holding of the meeting. tender the circumstances we are not impressed by the submission urged by Counsel for the contesting respondents in this behalf. "the Bench has further observed:"there is no such indication and therefore for the reasons which we have already indicated earlier in the course of the judgment we are of the opinion that the expression election in Sec 32 (1) and Sec. 32 (3) has been used in the wider sence so as to embrace all the steps in the entire process of election including the step of filing the nomination papers " ( 9 ) IN that case the argument was two pronged namely that the entire process of the election including the stage of filing the nomination papers must take place (1) at the meeting and (2) after the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice President as contemplated by Sec. 33 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Bench held that it is necessary for a candidate contesting the election to know what is the term of the office for which he contests before he makes up his mind whether to contest or not to contest the election. After elaborately discussing the Secs. 32 and 33 the Bench observed that since the offending portion is severable they held that the following words in the opening portion of Rule 6 which offend Secs. 32 and 33 namely not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for the election of a President shall be struck down as being invalid and ultra vires Secs. 32 and 33 namely not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting for the election of a President shall be struck down as being invalid and ultra vires Secs. 32 and 33 of the Act. For all these reasons the Bench held that the respondents Nos. 5 and 7 were not validly elected to the office of President and Vice-President respectively and they have no right to hold the said offices. ( 10 ) IT is interesting to note that subsequent to the abovesaid decision Rule 6 of Municipal Election Rules has been amended as follows:"6 Nomination of candidates :- (1) After the term of the President and Vice-President is determined at the meetings the Presiding Officer shall announce in the meeting that nomination papers for the election of the President shall be delivered to him within fifteen minutes of the announcement. (2) Any Councillor may nominate any other Councillor for election as President. The nomination paper shall be in Form A. The nomination paper shall be signed by the proper and shall also be signed as a seconder by other Councillor other than the Councillor to be nominated as President. "from the abovesaid amendment it is clear that the entire process of election including the filing of the nomination paper has to take place at the meeting held for the purpose of holding the election. ( 11 ) BEARING the abovesaid principle enunciated in the decision rendered by a Bench of this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973 decided on 22/23-3-1973 we can now examine the facts of the present case. Section 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 reads as follows:"sec. 55 (1) on the constitution of a Taluka Panchayat or on its reconstitution under Sec. 17 or under any other provisions of this Act there shall be called the first meeting thereof for the election of its President and Vice-President. Section 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 reads as follows:"sec. 55 (1) on the constitution of a Taluka Panchayat or on its reconstitution under Sec. 17 or under any other provisions of this Act there shall be called the first meeting thereof for the election of its President and Vice-President. (2) The meeting shall be held on such day within four weeks from the date (on which the names of members elected at the general election are published under Sec. 18) as may be fixed by the competent authority;provided that where no day is fixed within the aforesaid period of four weeks the competent authority shall report the fact to the State Government or an officer or authority authorised by the State Government and the meeting shall be held on such day as the State Government or the said officer or authority as the case may be may specify. (3) The first meeting shall be presided over by such officer as the competent authority may by order appoint in that behalf. Such officer shall have such powers and follow such procedure as may be prescribed but shall not have the right to vote. (4) No business other than the election of the President and Vice_president shall be transacted at the meeting. (5) If at the election under this section there is an equality of votes the result of the election shall be decided by lot drawn in the presence of the presiding officer in such manner as he may determine. (6) In the event of a dispute arising as to the validity of an election under the foregoing provisions of this section the dispute shall be referred (within a period of thirty days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election) to the competent authority for decision. The decision of the competent authority shall be final and no suit or other proceeding shall lie against it in any Court. " ( 12 ) SECTION 55 (4) clearly states that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. The decision of the competent authority shall be final and no suit or other proceeding shall lie against it in any Court. " ( 12 ) SECTION 55 (4) clearly states that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. This Section which contemplates election of the President and the Vice-President is being interpreted by the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications by stating that the whole process of election including the nomination should be done in the meeting convened for the purpose of election of the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat. According to the petitioners the election includes the whole process of the election from The filing of the nomination up-till the declaration of the results. The Notice Annexure A in Special Civil Application No. 554 of 1981 states that the election of the President and Vice-President would be held in the meeting to be held on 24/02/1981 from 1100 a. m. to 2. 00 p. m and that the intending candidates of the election for President and Vice-President should submit the nomination papers not later than 23/02/1981 between 11. 00 a. m. and 2 00 p. m. and the said nomination papers will be scrutinised by 2. 00 p. m. on the same day. In Special Civil Application No. 571 of 1981 the respondent No. 3 therein has issued a notice in Form No. A under Rule 4 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1962 calling the meeting of the said Panchayat on 24th February 1381 at 12. 00 Oclock for the purpose of election of the President and Vice-President and in that notice it is stated that the nomination papers should be filled in on the previous day between 1100 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. and that the scrutiny thereof will held on the same day at 3. 00 p. m. Thus we are able to see that the notices referred to above calls for the nomination of the President and Vice-President. 00 p. m. and that the scrutiny thereof will held on the same day at 3. 00 p. m. Thus we are able to see that the notices referred to above calls for the nomination of the President and Vice-President. The Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1962 were framed by virtue of the powers conferred by Sec. 323 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 Rule 4 of the said Rules reads as follows:" 4 Notice of meeting :- The Presiding Officer shall cause (a notice in Form A appended to these rules) for such meeting to be given to every member of the Panchayat at least (six clear days before the date of such meeting. Such notice may be issued by the Presiding Officer or by the Secretary if so authorised by the Presiding officer. "rule 6 of the said Rules reads as follows:" 6 Nomination of candidates: on the date immediately preceding the date of the meeting. between the hours of eleven Oclock in the forenoon and two Oclock in the afternoon each candidate or his proposer shall personally deliver to the February at his office a nomination paper duly completed in Form A-1 appended to these Rules; (2) A nomination paper so delivered shall be subscribed by the candidate as assenting to the nomination and signed by the proposer who stall be a member; (3) On receipt of the nomination paper the Secretary shall enter on it the date and hour of delivery and satisfy himself that the proposer is a member. ( 13 ) SINCE the Bench of this High Court while issuing rule in the abovesaid two Special Civil Applications felt that the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973 decided on 22/23-3-1973 required reconsideration these cases are posted before this Full Bench. ( 14 ) RULE 6 of the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1964 as it stood then and Rule 6 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1962 spells out acceptance of the nomination paper prior to the meeting fixed for election of President and Vice-President. Section 55 (4) of the Panchayats Act specifically states that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. Section 55 (4) of the Panchayats Act specifically states that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. Section 32 (3) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act specifically states that no business other than the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice-President and the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at such meeting. Interpreting Sec. 32 (3) and also the Rules of the Municipalities Act the Bench of this High Court decided that the nomination and the election must be in the same meeting and the nomination cannot be prior to the meeting convened for the election of President and Vice-President. Since the Bench felt that such interpretation requires reconsideration it has referred the matter to the Full Bench observing:"in our opinion the decision in Spl. C. A. 229 of 1973 decided on 22/23-3-1973 in the context of Rule 6 of the Gujarat Municipality Act which is in pari materia requires to be reconsidered. we therefore refer this matter to the larger bench. " ( 15 ) IN the Special Civil Application No. 2z9 of 1973 a Bench of this High Court referred the decision in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and came to the conclusion that the election includes the filing of nomination also and as such the same must be at the meeting convened for the election of the President and Vice-President. Reading the said decision it is no doubt true that the election includes all the process of election including that of the nomination but the question as to whether the election is illegal because a part of the election process (such as filing and scrutiny of nominations) is held before the meeting is required to be examined. In this connection we can usefully refer the important observations of the Supreme Court in the abovesaid Ponnuswamis case reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 which is to the following effect. ( 16 ) IT deals with the case arising out of an election under the Representation of the People Act. The question that arose in this case is as to whether the improper rejection of nomination paper can be by way of writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) IT deals with the case arising out of an election under the Representation of the People Act. The question that arose in this case is as to whether the improper rejection of nomination paper can be by way of writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Article 329 (b) reads:"no election to either House of Parliament or to the State or to the either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and ill such manner as may be provided for by and under any Jaw made by the appropriate Legislature. "now the main controversy in the appeal decided by the Supreme Court centered round the meaning of the word no election shall be called in question except by an election petition in Art. 329 (b) and the point to be decided there was whether questioning the action of the returning officer in rejecting a nomination paper can be said to be comprehended within the words no election shall be called in question. The appellant therein contended that questioning something which has happened before a candidate is declared elected is not the same thing as questioning an election. For this purpose the appellant advanced certain arguments. After hearing those arguments the Supreme Court observed that the most important question to be determined in this case is the meaning to be given to the word election in Art 329 In that connection? the Supreme Court observed;" That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of representatives in democratic institutions acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. the Supreme Court after referring to Art. 324 wherein the word conduct of elections occurs and other relevant provisions in the Representation of the People Act observed. In the wide sense the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. the Supreme Court after referring to Art. 324 wherein the word conduct of elections occurs and other relevant provisions in the Representation of the People Act observed. That the word selection can be and has been properly used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process. "proceeding further the Supreme Court observed:"if the grounds on which the election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors if any are rectified there will be no meaning in enacting provisions like art. 329 (b) and in setting up a special Tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in Article would lead to anomalies which the Constitution could not have contemplated one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Courts at the pre-polling stage and by the Election Tribunal which is to be an independent body at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. "the Supreme Court after observing that the Representation of the People Act 1951 was passed by the Parliament by virtue of the power under Art. 327 of the Constitution held:"the Act is a self-contained enactment so far as the elections are concerned which means that. wherever we have to ascertain the true position with regard to any matter connected with elections we have only to look at the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The provisions of the act which are material to the present discussion are Secs. 80 100 105 and 170 and the provisions of Chapter II of Para 4 dealing with the form of election petitions their contents and the reliefs which may be sought in them. Section 80 which provides in almost in the same language as Art. 329 (b) provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part Section 100 as we have already seen provides that the ground on which the election may be called in question one of which is an improper rejection of a nomination paper. Section 10 says that every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive. Section 170 provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the returning officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with the elections. These are the main provisions regarding election matters being judicially dealt with and it should be noted that there is no provision anywhere to the effect thai anything connected with election can be questioned at an intermediate stags. "the Supreme Court also observed after referring to some English decisions:"i think it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to state that the act provides for only one remedy. That remedy being of an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is to remedy provided at on intermediate stage. "proceeding further the Supreme Court observed:"the question which is to be asked is what conceivable reason the legislature could not have had to lead only matters connected with nominations subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 22 of the Constitution. If Part XV of the Constitution is code by itself i. e. it creates rights and provides for their enforcement of a special Tribunal to the exclusion of all Courts including the High Court there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small part of the election process namely acceptance or rejection of nomination paper to be made the subject matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby upset the time schedule of the elections. The more reasonable views seen to be that Art. 329 covers all electoral matters. "after observing so the Supreme Court summed up its conclusion as follows:" Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed that after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. IN conformity with this principle the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not effect the election and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which erections are governed would have the effect of vitiating the election and enable the person affected to call it In question they should be brought up before a special Tribunal by means of an election petition and Dot be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress. " ( 17 ) TO the argument that if nomination is part of the election a dispute as to the validity of a nomination cannot be decided by the Returning Officer inasmuch as it confers on the Returning Officer a jurisdiction which Art. 329 confers on the Tribunal to be appointed in accordance with the Article the Supreme Court observed:" In discharging a statutory duty imposed on him the returning officer does not call in question an election Scrutiny of nomination papers is only a stage though an important stage in the election process. It is one of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed and anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single step taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election The decision of this appeal however turns not on the construction of the single word election but on the construction of the compendious expression no election shall be called in question in its context and setting with due regard to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951" ( 18 ) IN the abovesaid decision the observation of the Supreme Court is in respect of the advisability of calling in question the election at the intermediate stage. The election contemplated under the Representation of the People Act and under the provisions of the Constitution in Chapter XV embraces all processes of election including filing of the nomination until declaration of the election result. The election contemplated under the Representation of the People Act and under the provisions of the Constitution in Chapter XV embraces all processes of election including filing of the nomination until declaration of the election result. If any of the process is questioned at the intermediary stage the progress of the election will be obstructed thereby affecting the process of whole election and its time schedule. In that context in order to see that the process of election is not interfered with at an intermediary stage the Supreme Court observed that the whole election process includes that of filing of the nomination also. This observation and conclusion is reasonable and conducive for the implementation of the democratic process. Nowhere it is spelt out that these processes should be at one and the same time. The chain of events ultimately culminating in the declaration of the result form the process of election and in order to keep the links without being broken at the intermediary stage the Supreme Court interpreted the word election occurring in Art. 329 (b) and held that the word election is used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the election. If small part of the election process namely acceptance or rejection of nomination paper to be made the subject matter of contest before the High Courts it will upset the time schedule of the elections. That is Art. 329 (b) has made it specific that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by and under any law made by the appropriate legislature. It is to the same effect in the Representation of the People Act also. Further the Supreme Court in the abovesaid decision repelled the contention of the party who agitated the matter to the effect that scrutiny of nomination if the whole election process includes the filing of the nomination also cannot be done by the returning officer. In this connection the Supreme Court observed:" Scrutiny of nomination papers as only a stage for an important stage in the election process. In this connection the Supreme Court observed:" Scrutiny of nomination papers as only a stage for an important stage in the election process. It is one of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed and anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single stop taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election. The decision of this appeal however turns not on the construction of the single word election but on the construction of the compendious expression no election shall be called in question in its context and setting with due regard to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951"from the abovesaid observation it is very clear the nomination is one of the steps in the process of election coming under the scheme of election and that single step itself cannot be equated to the election as a whole. ( 19 ) IN the light of the abovesaid discussion we can look into the reasoning and finding of the Bench in Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973. In that case Rule 6 of the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules came to be interpreted. The arguments in that case show that Rule 6 offends Secs. 32 33 and 34 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Section 32 (3) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act states that no business other than the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice-President and the election of the president and the Vice-President shall be transacted at such meeting. The two things that have to be done in that meeting is (1) the determination of the term of the office of the President and Vice-President and (2) the election of the President and Vice-President. The Bench after referring various other decisions observed that unless the term of office of the President and Vice-President is determined it will not be possible for the candidates to make up their mind to stand for the election. Until the term is determined there is no question of directing any party who is interested in contesting the election to file the nomination. Until the term is determined there is no question of directing any party who is interested in contesting the election to file the nomination. Even apart from this business that has to be transacted at the meeting hold for the purpose of electing President and Vice-President the Bench of this High Court referring to the decision in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 held that the nomination also should be at the meeting held for the election of the President and Vice-President and it cannot be before the time fixed for the election of the President and Vice-President and before the term is determined in the meeting. If there is any stipulation that the nomination has to be before the meeting to be held for the election of President and Vice-President and therefore before the term is determined the Bench held that the same will be contrary to the provisions of Sec. 32 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. ( 20 ) IN that case the Bench considered the following argument:"it has been argued that having regard to the scheme of Secs. 31 32 and 33 the entire process of election including the step of filing the nomination papers must take place (1) at the meeting and (2) after the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice-President as contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 33 of the Act. "relying on the judgment in the case of Keshavrao Shrawanji Datir v. Collector Amravati 64 BLR 599 the Court came to the following conclusion:"in our opinion the contention is right that it is necessary for a candidate contesting the election to the office of President or Vice-President to know what is the term of his office before he makes up his mind whether or not to contest the election. An illustration will make the basis of the reasoning clear. A busy doctor or a busy lawyer may want to contest the election. Unless he knows for how long he would be required to remain away from his profession he may not take a final decision as to whether or not he should contest the election. An illustration will make the basis of the reasoning clear. A busy doctor or a busy lawyer may want to contest the election. Unless he knows for how long he would be required to remain away from his profession he may not take a final decision as to whether or not he should contest the election. It therefore appears to us that what Sec. 33 has in contemplation is that the entire procedure of election including the fitting of the nomination papers should take place before the term of the Office of President and Vice-President is determined at the first meeting. It is however argued by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that the expression his election employed by the Legislature in Sec. 33 would indicate that what the Legislature had in mind was the final process of selection and not the entire procedure embracing all the steps of the election. It is no doubt true that the expression employed in Sec. 33 (1) is previous to his elections. That expression appears to have been used to refer to the point of time before the election to the office takes place. Under the circumstances we are not inclined to accept the submission that Sec. 33 refers to the process of final selection and that the filing of nomination papers which is one of the anterior steps is not covered by Sec. 33. As observed earlier these appears to be a purpose and a point in the Legislature insisting on determination of the term to the office of President or Vice-President prior to the stages of election including the stage of filing of nomination papers. We are therefore unable to accede to the argument. "thus in that case the Division Bench held that the determination of the term was the first step to be taken before the candidates are invited to contest the election and therefore the stage of nomination would be necessarily after the determination of the term and therefore the entire process of election had to take place at the meeting and therefore the word election got wider connotation in that case because of the provision of determination of the term in the meeting and holding of the election in the meeting. . . ( 21 ) IN the light of our discussion made in paragraph supra the decision reported in Ponnuswamis case which is reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 nowhere spells out that the nomination also should be on the date fixed for the election. No doubt the Supreme Court has spelt out that the election includes the stage of nomination also until the declaration of the result. In order to avoid obstruction to the process of election at the intermediary stage by approaching the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution or by any other proceedings in the Court the Supreme Court construed the election occurring in Art. 329 (b) and also in the Representation of the People Act to include the whole process of election and that the questioning of any such process must be by way of an election petition. Nowhere it is stated that all the processes towards the final election and the final declaration of the result should be in the one and the same meeting or should be decided at the meeting converted for election of candidates for the posts. Apart from the fact that there is no prohibition to have a nomination prior to the election contemplated under Sec. 32 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Sec. 55 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act at the time prior to the meeting fixed for election of President and Vice-President there is no warrant to construe the word election occurring therein in a broader sense so as to nullify the nomination filed prior to the date fixed for the election of President and Vice-President. Inasmuch as there is no prohibition in both the Sections referred above to have the nomination prior to the election of President and Vice-President it is too much to construe that it is coming into conflict or contrary to the Provisions of Sec. 32 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Sec. 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. In Ponnuswamis case reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 the Supreme Court has correctly held that single stap taken in furtherance of an election cannot be equated to the election proper. In this case the Supreme Court focused its attention not on the word election but on the construction of the compendious expression no election shall be called in question. ( 22 ) AS pointed out earlier the scheme of Secs. In this case the Supreme Court focused its attention not on the word election but on the construction of the compendious expression no election shall be called in question. ( 22 ) AS pointed out earlier the scheme of Secs. 32 and 33 of the Municipalities Act is that after the general election to a Municipality the Collector has to call the first general meeting of that body for (i) the determination of the term of office of the President and Vice-President of the Municipality and (ii) the election of the President and Vice-President. No business other than the determination of the term of office and election of the aforesaid two offices can be contacted at the said meeting in view of the mandate of Sec. 32 (3 ). It stands to reason that the term of office must be determined first in point of time and the election may take place immediately thereafter as any candidate who desires to contest the election would first enquire of the duration of the office. If the term of office is very short a person may not consider it worthwhile to contest the election. However both the things viz. (i) determination of the term of office and (ii) election to the said office or offices must be done at such meeting. The mandate of Sec. 32 (3) is clear from the words shall be transacted at such meeting. The use of the word at in the context and setting in which it occurs leaves no room for doubt that the entire process of election must start at such meeting and not prior to the meeting Yet Rule 6 as it then stood required the nomination papers to be filed not less than two hours before the time fixed for the meeting. Thus the rule contemplated the filing of nomination papers prior to the first meeting i. e. outside the first meeting which was clearly ultra vires Sec. 32 (3) of the statute. That is why the Court gave a wider meaning to the term election ( 23 ) NOW Sec. 55 of the Panchayats Act also contemplates the election of the President and Vice-President to be held at the first meeting of the newly constituted/reconstituted panchayat. Sub-sec. (4) of that Section also posits that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. Sub-sec. (4) of that Section also posits that no business other than the election of the President and Vice-President shall be transacted at the meeting. It is necessary to realise that the said Section does not provide that the term of office of the President and Vice-President shall also be determined at such meeting as in the case of Sec. 32 of the Municipalities Act. There is therefore no inherent indication in Sec. 55 of the Panchayats Act in support of the contention that the term elections is used in the wider sense as was found in Sec. 32 of the Municipalities Act. Section 55 does not require the decision as to the term of office to he taken at the first meeting of the Taluka Panchayat as in the case of Municipality. The term of office is in fact determined by Sec. 57 which provides that it shall be co-extensive with the term of Panchayat. Section 17 fixed the term of a Panchayat. It is therefore necessary to realise that unlike in the case of a Municipality where the term of office has to be determined at the first meeting in the case of a Panchayat the term is statutorily determined and is not left to be determined at the first meeting of the Panchayat. This is a very significant departure which points to the fact that the relevant provisions of the Panchayats Act are not in pari materia with the provisions of Secs. 32 and 33 of the Municipalities Act. While interpreting the relevant provisions of the Municipalities Act this Court gave a wider meaning to the word election because it was clear that the entire process of the election was expected to commence and terminate at the first meeting. The process of election could not start unless the term of office was determined and this had to be determined at the first meeting and the election to the office had to be finalised at the said meeting. Under the Panchayats Act since the term or duration of office is statutorily fixed the nominations could be invited before the first meeting and the actual election may then take place at the first meeting. It is therefore not necessary to take the view that the Panchayats Act also envisages that the entire process of election must take place at the first meeting. It is therefore not necessary to take the view that the Panchayats Act also envisages that the entire process of election must take place at the first meeting. We are therefore of the view that the provisions of the Panchayats Act are not in pari materia with the provisions of Municipalities Act. ( 24 ) THUS it is clear that the observations of the Divisions Bench in Special Civil Application No. 229 of 1973 that the entire process of election including the step of filing of nomination papers should take place at the meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President was mainly because of the requirement of the determination the term of the President and the Vice-President in the meeting itself. In so far as the Division Bench observed in that case that the entire election process should be held at the meeting has to be understood and confined to the provisions of Sec. 32 (2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. But the submissions in so far as it states that the wide connotation of the word election is included in the word election used in that Section to cover the entire election process is required to be overruled because Sec. 55 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act which also uses the word election at the meeting cannot be construed to mean that the entire election process must be held at the meeting. There is no prohibition against holding earlier stages of the process of election like filing and scrutiny of nomination papers before the meeting. Therefore Rule 6 under the Gujarat Panchayats Act cannot be said to be violative or ultra vires of Sec. 55 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. ( 25 ) INASMUCH as there is no conflict between Rule 6 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (President and Vice-President) Election Rules 1962 prescribing the nomination to be filed the day prior to the election fixed under Sec. 55 (4) and the Sec. 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the Rule 6 cannot be held to be ultra vires Sec. 55 of the Act. Further these Rules are framed by virtue of the power conferred under Sec. 3-23 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Further these Rules are framed by virtue of the power conferred under Sec. 3-23 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. These Rules framed were placed before the legislature as provided under Sec. 23 (4) of the Act which reads:" 323 (4) All rules made under this section shall be laid for not less than thirty days before the State Legislature as st on as possible after they are made and shall be subject to such modifications as the Legislature may make during the session in which they are so laid or the session immediately following. thus these Rules have statutory effect and in the absence of prohibition in the main Act for the procedure prescribed in these Rules it cannot he said that there is conflict between the Rule and the Section by interpreting the Section in a way which may conflict with the Rule. We have in paragraphs supra Specifically held that the election mentioned in Sec. 55 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 need not be the whole process of election and certain stage of the election can be prior to the meeting fixed for the election of President and Vice-President under Sec. 55 (4) of the Act. The various stages of process in the election can be anterior to the date of the meeting for election of the President and Vice-President. In such meeting no business other than the actual election (i. e. recording of votes counting and declaration of the result) shall be conducted in the meeting prescribed under Sec. 55 (4) of the Act. This is the only prohibition that can be spelt out from Sec. 55 (4) of the Act. For all these reasons the reference to the Full Bench is answered in the abovesaid terms. ( 26 ) INASMUCH as the period of the President and Vice-President involved in these cases are over long back Mr. Raval learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners correctly state that these Special Civil Applications have become infructuous and as such these Special Civil Applications are dismissed as having become infructuous. Rule discharged in both the petitions. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. .