JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—The matter was heard by us at considerable length yesterday. At the fag end, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner found that we were not agreeing with his submissions, a request was made to us that a similar matter had already been admitted by this Court. Reference to the case of Babu Ram v. State of H. P. (C. W. P. No. 647 of 1985) was given by Shri Kanwar. We directed to present case to be listed with Civil Writ Petition No. 647 of 1985 {Babu Ram v. State of H. P.). We also directed*that the names of the counsel, appearing in that petition, be also shown in the cause list. The case has been listed today. Shri Inder Singh, appearing for the petitioner in that case, has also appeared before us. He has brought to our notice the fact that there is no similarity in the present case and that of Babu Rams casein which the only question raised by him was that the decision of the competent authority striking off the name of Babu Ram from the electoral roll was based upon no evidence. We fail to understand why a reference to Babu Rams case was given to us by the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. 2. In the present case the grievance of the petitioner is that it was not open to the prescribed authority, while trying the election petition, to go into the question whether the second respondent was eligible to file a nomination for the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The precise submission made was that this question could only be gone into at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers and not thereafter. 3. The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, (for brief, "the Act") provides in section 5 (3) about the eligibility of a person who can become a member of the Gram Sabha. It says that "every person who has attained the age of eighteen years on the qualifying date and ordinarily resides in a village which forms a part of the Sabha area for a period of one year immediately before the qualifying date and whose name is registered in the register of members to be prepared and maintained by the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed manner, shall be a member of that Gram Sabha". Sub-section (5) of section 9 of the Act lays down the disqualifications in becoming a member of the Sabha. It is not necessary for us, for purposes of the present case, to notice those disqualifications. 4. It has been provided in section 9 (I) of the Act that each Gram Sabha shall elect, from amongst its members, a Pradhan, in the prescribed manner. The state Government has framed the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1978, (hereafter, "the Rules") in exercise of the powers in that behalf contained in section 00 of the Act. These Rules, inter alia, provide for scrutiny of nomination papers. The relevant provisions are contained in Rule 14. The Returning Officer is to examine the nomination papers and, as contemplated by sub-rule (3), he shall reject the nomination papers on the following grounds:— (i) if the nomination paper has not been signed by a proposer or the proposer was not an elector of the Constituency/Gram Sabha, as the case may be, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper ; (ii) if the nomination paper is not assented by the candidate or the signature of the candidate is not genuine ; (iii) if the provisions of Rules 11 to 13 of these rules have not been complied with. Rule 11 provides for drawing up of an election programme, indicating, inter alia, the date, time, and place for the filing of nomination papers, the scrutiny of nomination papers etc. Rule 12 provides for nomination of candidates. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 says that any person who is not disqualified may be nominated as a candidate for election as...........Pradhan. It is not necessary to notice the other sub-rules. Rule 13 provides for deposit of security, its return or forfeiture in certain circumstances. Proceeding further, the Rules deal with the question of election disputes, Beginning with Rule 55 and ending with Rule 62, these rules make provisions for the presentation and disposal of the election petitions and the communication of the orders passed on such petitions. 5. The act has also made provision in Chapter XIII in regard to disputes relating to elections. This Chapter consists of sections 166 to 187. Id section 180 the Act gives out the grounds on which an election can be set-aside. It reads thus:— "180. 5. The act has also made provision in Chapter XIII in regard to disputes relating to elections. This Chapter consists of sections 166 to 187. Id section 180 the Act gives out the grounds on which an election can be set-aside. It reads thus:— "180. (1) If the prescribed authority is of the opinion— (a) that on the date of his election the elected person was not qualified, or was disqualified to be elected under this Act ; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by the elected person or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected person or his agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected ; or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected—- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination ; or (ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void ; or (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules made under this Act; the prescribed authority shall set aside the election of the elected person. (2) When an election has been set aside under sub-section (1), a fresh election shall be held." 6. A perusal of section 180 makes it clear that of the various reasons on which an election can be set aside by the prescribed authority, two reasons are where the elected person was not found qualified on the date of his election or was found to be disqualified to be elected and where it is found by the prescribed authority that any nomination paper had been improperly rejected. This is clear from the perusal of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 180. 7. Where a nomination paper has been improperly rejected, in contravention of the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules, the prescribed authority may set aside an election on that ground under clause (c). Where, however, it is found that a person who has been actually elected, was not qualified on the date of his election, the prescribed authority can set-aside the election under clause (a). This clause clearly is relatable to an enquiry into the qualification or disqualification contemplated by section 5 (3) and section 9 (5) of the Act. 8. Where, however, it is found that a person who has been actually elected, was not qualified on the date of his election, the prescribed authority can set-aside the election under clause (a). This clause clearly is relatable to an enquiry into the qualification or disqualification contemplated by section 5 (3) and section 9 (5) of the Act. 8. The question whether a person was qualified within the meaning of section 5 (3) in the sense that he was ordinarily a resident of the village which formed part of the Sabha area for a period of one year immediately before the qualifying date cannot, in our opinion, be gone into by the Returning Officer and made a ground for rejection of the nomination paper under Rule 14 of the Rules. The jurisdiction of the Returning Officer, in the matter of rejection of a nomination paper, is confined to the grounds provided in sub»rule (3) of Rule 14. He cannot reject a nomination paper on a ground which is not provided for in this Rule. 9. In this view, the position seems to be clear that if any objection is to be raised regarding the qualification of a person seeking election as a Pradhan, within the meaning of section 5 (3) of the Act, it must be gone into when an election petition assailing the election of a Pradhan is filed and tried. The prescribed authority can, on the material brought on the record of the case, go into this question and come to a conclusion whether or not he was qualified to be a member of the Gram Sabha and, thus, seek election to the office of Pradhan under section 9 (1) of the Act. The prescribed authority can then take a decision about upholding or setting aside his election, if he is the elected Pradhan, on that ground under clause (a) of section 180 of the Act. If the nomination of any person is found to have been wrongly rejected, upon an erroneous assumption about his qualification, the election of the returned candidate may be set aside under clause (c) thereof. 10. In the present case this is what has precisely been done by the prescribed authority. If the nomination of any person is found to have been wrongly rejected, upon an erroneous assumption about his qualification, the election of the returned candidate may be set aside under clause (c) thereof. 10. In the present case this is what has precisely been done by the prescribed authority. No error can be found in the decision recorded by the prescribed authority in the election petition in the instant case on the ground that it was not open to the prescribed authority to go into this question and that the only stage when the question of eligibility of the second respondent under section 5 (3) of the Act could be gone into was at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination paper, 11. It was strenuously contended by Shri S. S. Kanwar, appearing for the petitioner, that the Deputy Commissioner, while deciding the election petition, did not consider the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner showing that the second respondent was not ordinarily a resident of village Machkehar. As such, the order deserved to be quashed and the matter liable to be sent back for reconsideration. We are unable to agree. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Commissioner has noticed the evidence brought on the record by both the parties and has, thereafter, while recording his decision under the first issue framed by him, concluded that the second respondent was a resident of the village. It is true that in so many words he has not mentioned in the order that the second respondent ordinarily resided in the village for a period of one year immediately before the qualifying date, yet, we find that in the impugned order there is a reference to the petitioners own witness RW 7, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, who had stated that the name of the second respondent along with the names of other members of his family was shifted to village Machkchar on July 16, 1978. In the opening part of his discussion under issue No, 1, the Deputy Commissioner has referred to the evidence saying that the second respondent was residing in village Machkehar. Substantially, the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner amounts to saying that the second respondent ordinarily resided in the village concerned. 12. The impugned order of the prescribed authority does not suffer from any apparent error of law. Substantially, the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner amounts to saying that the second respondent ordinarily resided in the village concerned. 12. The impugned order of the prescribed authority does not suffer from any apparent error of law. We decline to interfere with it in the present proceedings. The petition is dismissed. 13. Costs on parties. petition dismissed.