CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) ON 14-7-1988, I had recorded as follows :"two questions are required to be answered in the Writ Petition : 1) Whether writ petition lies against the judgment of the Munsiff Court while deciding an election dispute under Sec. 14 read with Secs. 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ? 2) Whether recording of votes of nominated members so nominated by adhyaksha of Zilla Parishad (which is held to be invalid by this Court) amounts to receipt of improper votes ? counsel seeks time to submit on the above questions. Call next week. " ( 2 ) MATTER coming up to-day for preliminary hearing, it is unnecessary to examine the first question as a learned single Judge of this court has already taken the view that the Writ Petition alone is maintainable having regard to the expression 'order shall be final' in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Karnataka zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayats Samithis, mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act. Undoubtedly, so far as my own reason is concerned, this will lead to the anamoly in that this Court has entertained Civil Revision Petitions under section 115 C P. C. in respect of interlocutory orders made by the Munsiffs decising election petitions concerning Mandal panchayats under the Act. I do not wish to say anything more about it in this writ Petition. ( 3 ) THE next question which falls for determination is also not one which gives much difficulty to answer. In more than one Writ Petition, I have taken, the view that participation of members nominated by the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishad in exercise of the delegated authority under sub-section (3) of Sec. 5 of the Act would render those votes invalid having regard to the fact that the correct position in law is that the Adhyaksha cannot be delega- ted with the authority in the first place, much less Zilla Parishad had the power to delegate that authority. Therefore, having regard to the clear decision of the division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal 1942 of 1987 and connected matters, nomination made would be void ab-initio. Therefore, having regard to the clear decision of the division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal 1942 of 1987 and connected matters, nomination made would be void ab-initio. Therefore certain members participating at the first meeting convened for purpose of electing Pradhan would amount to participation by members who are strangers to the Mandal Panchayat and as such their votes should not be counted in favour of one of the other contestant. Proper directions also have been given in those cases either to make a proper declaration or to hold a fresh election. But those decisions were rendered under Article 226 where the declaration was sought as no election petition as such had been filed. In the instant case, Petition is directed against the order of the Munsiff entertaining election petition and holding in view of the decision of this Court in Writ Appeals 1942 and 1943 and connected matters that the participation of illegally nominated members materially affected the result and therefore, the election should be set aside as such a ground was taken in the election petition by the respondent. Therefore I cannot take any different view in answering the second question. ( 4 ) THE only difference in this case is the nominated candidates in respect of bastvad Mandal Panchayath by the Adh- yaksha of the Zilla Parishad had been r. 52 withdrawn and yet they participated at the first meeting held by the Panchayath to elect the Pradhan and Upa Pradhan. The respondent-election petitioner had specifically pleaded that their participation materially affected the result and there- tore, the the election-petitioner should be set aside as they were not entitled to vote on account of their nomination having been withdrawn. In that circumstances, as evidenced by Annexure-'c' to the petition, the Munsiff did formulate a point for determination as follows :"whether the petitioner has proved that the nominated members viz, mahadevson of Ningappa Teli and Smt. Chandrabhaga Raghunath Prasad Hajeri were not entitled to cast their votes on 18-4-1987?. . . . "though the points have been formulated at the time of writing the final order, the plea regarding the competence to participate was there in the pleading. By the time the judgment was delivered by the i Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, this Court had already taken the view that the adhyaksha did not have the authority to make the nominations and nominations so made were void. By the time the judgment was delivered by the i Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, this Court had already taken the view that the adhyaksha did not have the authority to make the nominations and nominations so made were void. Therefore, he had no other alternative, but to consider that those persons, whether their nominations were withdrawn or not, whether their withdrawals were effective or not, were not members qualified in law to vote. ( 5 ) MR. Chaithanya Hegde, however, contended that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nripendra bahadur Singh's case ( AIR 1977 SC 1992 ) once the nominated members were in the electoral Roll or voters' list, reception of their votes could not be gone into by the election Tribunal as it was out-side the purview of the Election Tribunal to question the validity of the electoral roll. He drew my specific attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the said case at para 25 as reported in the All India reporter. I do not think that has any application to the facts of this case. There are no voters' list or electoral roll prepared, validity or otherwise of which is required to be investigated, or not investigated by the Munsiff. Election of Pradhan or Upa Pradhan is directly governed by the rules made in that behalf under the act. Those rules do not provide for preparation of any electoral roll. They only provide under Rule 4 of the Karnataka zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchaya s (Conduct of Election) Rules, for the manner in which meeting shall be called and election held in accordance with the mandate of that rule. There may be cases where there has been need for nomination and members have been nominated in accordance with law or otherwise or there may not be any nomination at all because it was not required in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. In which event the Mandal Panchayath nevertheless will be duly constituted if the members are elected in requisite proportion prescribed by the Act. Therefore, members are the ones who are elected including nominated members if any, are the persons entitled to participate in the meeting. In which event the Mandal Panchayath nevertheless will be duly constituted if the members are elected in requisite proportion prescribed by the Act. Therefore, members are the ones who are elected including nominated members if any, are the persons entitled to participate in the meeting. Whether a person is a nominated member or not is a question which is required to be decided and if it is decided that certain member was not nominated, then there is only a declaration that persons incompetent to vote have voted and therefore there has been improper reception of votes which is a ground for setting aside the election available under Sec. 16. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is rejected. --- *** --- .