JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28-4-1989 of the Election Officer disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the election for the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Chikni, Tahsil Warora, District Chandrapur. The elections were scheduled to be held on the 13th May 1989. 2. The nomination paper for contesting the election from Gandhi Ward No. 1 of the said village Chikni was filed in by the petitioner and the same came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, in that she was a member of the joint Hindu family consisting of hereself and her husband Krushnadas Mathankar and house property standing in the name of the said Krushnadas at Village Khapri, within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Khapri, was in arrears of Gram Panchayat taxes amounting to Rs. 126/- for a period of six years and that she was as a member of an undivided joint Hindu family, as such, disqualified from contesting the said election. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari and for other appropriate writs in that nature, for quashing the order dated 28-4-1989 rejecting her nomination paper on the ground of the disqualification incurred. 3. The petitioner submits that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was raised by respondent No. 4, who was also contesting the said election, that Krushnadas Mathankar owned a house within the limits of another Gram Panchayat, namely, Khapri in respect of which house tax and electric tax had come to be accumulated for a period of six years. The petitioners also submitted that to this objection raised, she had submitted an explanation that the petitioner was not a voter from the village Khapri for which there was a separate Gram Panchayat; secondly that she was resident of village Chikni and that the taxes for the house at Chikni had been paid in full and further that even in respect of the house at village Khapri, no demand had ever been made upon her or any member of her family and no bill has been served upon her and, therefore, there was no question of failure to pay the arrears of any taxes. The order of disqualification and consequently rejection of the nomination papers was, therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. No Return has been filed by the respondents, though duly served. Upon presentation of this petition, an interim order of stay of election for the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was granted. 5. We have heard learned Counsel, Shri Sambre, for the petitioner. The short question which is required to be answered is whether the fact that a person contesting the elections for the Gram Panchayat of a particular village can be held as disqualified for contesting the same in the event of his having incurred a disqualification under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay village Panchayats Act, not for the purposes of the election in the Village from where he is contesting but for the purposes of the election for the village Gram Panchayat in which the house, taxes in respect of which have fallen in arrears, is to be held. In short, the question is whether if the petitioner as a member of an undivided joint Hindu family were found to be in arrears of Gram Panchayat taxes for the village Khapri for which there is a separate Gram Panchayat, could she be found disqualified from contesting the election for the Gram Panchayat at village Chikni? Our finding must be that she cannot be so found disqualified and the impugned order must only deserve to be quashed. Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act lists disqualification on account of which no person could be a member of a Panchayat and continue as such, if he were to have incurred one or the other disqualification enumerated in Clauses (a) to (k). The relevant Clause (h) of section 14 would, therefore, read : "No person shall be a member of a Panchayat or continue as such, who fails to pay any tax or fee due to the Panchayat (or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him)". Therefore, it is more than clear that the disqualification does not say that a person shall not by a member of any Panchayat in the event of his being in arrears of taxes or on account of his failure to pay taxes or fees due to any Panchayat. Therefore, it is more than clear that the disqualification does not say that a person shall not by a member of any Panchayat in the event of his being in arrears of taxes or on account of his failure to pay taxes or fees due to any Panchayat. The use of the article 'a' in the opening Clause of section 14 and the use of article 'the' in clause (h) of section 14 will clearly mean that the taxes or fees due and which a person fails to pay must be in respect of the property which is within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat of village in respect of which the election is to be held, which therefore, clearly means, that the fact of the present petitioner being found in arrears of house taxes in respect of her undivided joint Hindu family house at Khapri, even if assumed to be true, would not come in the way of her contesting election for the Village Panchayat, Chikni. It must be found also quite clear that all the allegations in that behalf in the petition have gone entirely uncontroverted. That no merely the fact of failure to pay taxes or fees due to the Panchayat must be proved, but also the fact that the failure to so pay the arrears of taxes and fees must be within a period or three months, from the date on which such taxes or fees are demanded and a bill for the purpose is duly served upon such person. Therefore, even if the fact of house taxes and electricity taxes in respect of the house property within the limits of the Gram Panchayat, Khapri were assumed to be correct, the further requirements of failure to so pay the arrears within three months from the date of the service of bill have also to be established of which there is a clear absence. In fact, the petitioner, has categorically stated that no demand in respect of the arrears of taxes in respect of the Khapri property was ever made upon her or any member of her family nor was any bill served upon her or any member of her family. 6. In fact, the petitioner, has categorically stated that no demand in respect of the arrears of taxes in respect of the Khapri property was ever made upon her or any member of her family nor was any bill served upon her or any member of her family. 6. In the circusmtances, we have absolutely no doubt that the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that she was found to have incurred a disqualification under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was entirely unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. We accordingly, hold that the petitioner is not so disqualified from contesting the election. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner's costs of this petition shall be borne by the respondent No. 4 upon whose objection the nomination paper came to be rejected. Order accordingly. -----