A. G. QURESHI, S. K. DUBEY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri K. L. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S Samvatsar, learned Dy. Government advocate for the respondents, on the question of admission. ( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner by the returning officer for Gram Panchayat Kohadiya, Block nalkheda, District Shajapur, which was to be held on 17-2-1989 (now the elections stayed by the Division Bench of Jabalpur Bench ). According to the petitioner, the State Government had declared the programme for holding the elections for Sarpanch and Gram Panchayats. Accordingly, elections of Gram Panchayat Kohadiya were also lo be held. The petitioner was a candidate for the aforesaid elections. Therefore, he filed a nomination form. Alongwith the nomination form he also filed a "no Dues" Certificate from Gram Panchayat, Manasa, which is Annexure P-2. The scrutiny of the nomination forms was held on 19-1-1989. At the time of the scrutiny, on the basis of some letter from the Collector (Panchayat) Shajapur dated 18-1-1989, that an amount of Rs 21. 700/- is recoverable from the petitioner, therefore, the nomination form was rejected. ( 3 ) IN the reply filed to the show cause notice, the returning officer has stated that the "no Dues" Certificate submitted by the petitioned was in respect of Panchayat, however, the Government dues were against the petitioner. Therefore, his nomination form was rejected. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid averments, now the question which arises for determination is whether a nomination form for the election of Panchayat of a candidate can be rejected on the basis of any dues of the Government towards such a candidate. Section 30 (k) of the Panchayat Act, clearly lays down that if the candidate has not paid all amount due by him to Panchayat on account of arrears of any account or on account of any advance or any other account, then inter alia his form shall be rejected, if he has not paid the dues despite a notice of 30 days to pay the amount and he has also not filed declaration to the effect that there are no dues against him. The aforesaid provision in unequivocal terms says that the due should be to the panchayat. The aforesaid provision in unequivocal terms says that the due should be to the panchayat. There is no provision in the law for rejecting the nomination paper in the event of any dues of the Government are not paid by the candidate. Probably the legislature has not debarred a Panch from contesting the election in the event of his failure to pay the Government dues, for the reasons that the Government has a more efficacious remedy for recovery of its dues, i. e. the dues can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Unfortunately, in many cases, which have come before us, we found that long-standing dues have not been recovered by the executive officers from the office bearers of the Panchayats and at the time of the elections, such Panchas are debarred from contesting the elections on the basis of those Government dues. Morally, one may say that a person who has not cleared the dues of the government, taken for the completion of the Panchayat work, may not be a fit person to contest the elections but legally the legislature has not meant any provision for debarring such a person from contesting the elections. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the form of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on wrong interpretation of Section 30 (k)of the Panchayat Act, wherein there is no disqualification for contesting the elections, if there are dues against a candidate of the Government. The dues, as stated earlier, should be of the Panchayat and not of the Government. In the instant case, the petitioner has obtained a "no Dues" Certificate of the Panchayat and also filed a declaration that there are no dues to the Panchayat. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner, being illegal, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is allowed to contest in the election on the ground that his nomination form for the election is valid. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .