JUDGMENT - SUKUMARAN K., J.:—A nice and interesting question arises in this case out of the dust and fume of election process. 2. The election scene is of Ward No. 64 in the Municipal Council of Bhusawal. The last date for making the nomination was on 30-10-1991 and the scrutiny was to take place on 31-10-1991. Patil Bhila Nathu was one such candidate. On that date itself, the publication of the list of validly nominated candidates had to be made. The list included the names of the petitioner and Patil Bhila Nathu along with many others. Withdrawal time was permitted upto 11th November, 1991. 3. Patil Bhila Nathu unfortunately passed away on 29th October, 1991. The proposer of his name informed the respondent No. 2 Returning Officer about it on 2nd November, 1991. As the information of death was not instantaneously available the nomination of Nathu had been accepted and as noted earlier, he figured as one of the candidates. 4. The Returning Officer thereafter passed the impugned order, Exhibit B, on 8th November, 1991, countermanding the elections. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such countermanding was not justified under Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Election Rules of 1966, as, there was no death of a contesting candidate. According to Counsel, Nathu had died even before the scrutiny of his nomination. A contest points the entry of the contestant into the arena. Long before the threshold the person who desired a contest, collapsed and ceased to exist. Someone so clearly outside the arena cannot be called a contesting candidate—so ran the arguments. We shall presently consider them carefully, despite their attractiveness at first blush. 6. The Rule reads: “23. A contest points the entry of the contestant into the arena. Long before the threshold the person who desired a contest, collapsed and ceased to exist. Someone so clearly outside the arena cannot be called a contesting candidate—so ran the arguments. We shall presently consider them carefully, despite their attractiveness at first blush. 6. The Rule reads: “23. Death of a candidate before poll.—If a contesting candidate dies and a report of his death is received by the Returning Officer before the commencement of the poll, the Returning Officer shall, upon being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate, countermand the poll in respect of the ward to the election of which the deceased was a candidate and report the fact to the Collector and all proceedings with reference to the election of such ward shall be commenced a new in all respects, as if for a new election: Provided that— (i) no further nomination shall be necessary in the case of a person who was a validly nominated candidate at the time of countermanding of the poll; and (ii) no person who has given a notice of withdrawal of his candidature under Rule 17 before the countermanding of the poll, shall be ineligible for being nominated as a candidate for the election after such countermanding.” 7. The very heading of the Rule is “Death of a candidate before poll”. This Rule corresponds to section 52 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Death is, in this mundane world, a certainty. One may, with a tinge of philosophy, equate it with just an abandonment of apparel or change of clothes. The fact remains that it is a point of no return. When a candidate dies, he withdraws once and for all from this world of contest and contentious. However, the mere fact that he is dead, is not sufficient for attracting the applicability of the Rule. 8. The Rule does not mandate countermanding of a poll, the moment a candidate dies. It is not the fact of death that results in an automatic countermand of the election. Note the wording: 'if a candidate dies and a report of the death is received by the Returning Officer'. If no report reaches the Returning Officer, the poll can certainly go on. It is not the fact of death that results in an automatic countermand of the election. Note the wording: 'if a candidate dies and a report of the death is received by the Returning Officer'. If no report reaches the Returning Officer, the poll can certainly go on. The election held in ignorance of the tragic event would not have any infirmity on that count in such a situation. If the report is received, but received later and after the election is already over, then also there would not be any countermand. 9. A look at the succeeding segment of the sentence warrants, yet another conditional factor to be satisfied before countermanding is resorted to. Even when a candidate dies, and the report of his death is received by the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer must be satisfied about the fact of the death of the candidate. Many people appear to feel, though perhaps wrongly, that everything is fair in love and elections. To reach the winning post, many means, fair and foul are adopted or adhered to. Pernicious propaganda, surreptitious suggestions, varieties whispering campaigns, extensive forgery of letters, raising of false alarms, circulation of false unfounded reports - all get mixed up in an atmosphere of dust and dirt, of contentious movements of the contesting candidates. It is to ward off the ill effects of such baseless reports, that the Rule requires a bona fide satisfaction on the part of the Returning Officer about the factum on death of the candidate, for ordering countermand. He may not be, in the midst of his hectic schedule, in a position to verify the fact of death by materials primary and reliable. No one can ordinarily expect a post mortem certificate or a death certificate to be presented so quickly to the Returning Officer to enable him to reach his satisfaction. It depends on the facts of the varying situations. It is not desirable to catalogue such situations or to attempt an exhaustive enumeration of them. What is to be emphasised is that the juncture of these conditions is essential before a countermand order is passed. 10. It is not possible to give an undue emphasis on the qualifying word 'contesting', in the term “contesting candidates” occurring in the Rule. Strictly speaking, the time when the countermand order is made, there is no contesting candidate at all. 10. It is not possible to give an undue emphasis on the qualifying word 'contesting', in the term “contesting candidates” occurring in the Rule. Strictly speaking, the time when the countermand order is made, there is no contesting candidate at all. He has already left the stage and bid adieu to all the experience of life, be they of consensus, contest or contentious. 11. The Rule relates to an activity of the material world. The realities of life, and the ordinary ways of transactions of its multitudinous facets, would have therefore to be borne in mind while attempting an interpretation of the Rule in any reasonable or rational manner. Whether there is a contesting candidate will have, therefore, to be understood in the entire background of the election process. The time factor in the adjudication of various aspects in the election process is acknowledged as a relevant one. Such for an example is the determination of the relevant time for considering the disqualification under section 36(2)(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with that aspect in (Ram Swaroop v. Hari Ram)1, 1983 Allahabad Series 686(S.C.). It was held that the relevant time is the time when the Returning Officer actually commences scrutiny of nominations. By a parity of reasoning it would be possible to hold that the determination of the question whether there is a contesting candidate, would have to be attempted with reference to the time when the contest is clearly posited. Under the electoral scheme, that point is reached when all candidates have had the opportunity to submit their nominations, the time sufficiently long to have a locus penitentiae and for beating retreat, if retreat be found advantageous or honourable in the situation. No retreat is possible when the time for withdrawal is past. That is the moment of certainty in relation to the contest of the election. If on the records, a candidate is a person figuring in the list of contestants as at that juncture of time, he would, in our opinion, be qualified for the appellation 'contesting candidate'. 12. We are dealing with an important facet of democratic activity. The Rules have to be interpreted in a pragmatic and practical manner, consistent with the larger objectives and actual difficulties faced in the conduct of elections. 12. We are dealing with an important facet of democratic activity. The Rules have to be interpreted in a pragmatic and practical manner, consistent with the larger objectives and actual difficulties faced in the conduct of elections. That would justify an assumption that the authorities have to act, while working out an election programme, on the information and materials available to them at a particular time. When at the time of nomination there was no information about the demise of one of those candidates who had submitted such nominations the authorities were justified in taking the view that his name should also figure in the list of contesting candidates for the elections. Once that stage is passed and crossed, the person becomes a contesting candidate, although from a practical point of view he is not alive. It would, therefore, follow that as per the electoral records, there is a contesting candidate and when information is received about the death of such a candidate, there is a satisfaction of the condition, namely, death of a contesting candidate. In that view of the matter, the action taken by the Returning Officer is in consonance with and in conformity to Rule 23. 13. The elections will have to be then conducted almost a new. Two facets of the earlier programme are permitted to continue as provided in the proviso: (1) Any person whose nomination has been accepted, need not resort to a repeat performance of filing the nomination afresh and (2) A person who had filed a nomination earlier but had withdrawn later, need not dream of to be a successful, candidate in the election that is to follow. This also gives an indication about the statutory scheme. To all intents and purposes, the electoral records will form the basis for determining the eventualities arising out of Rule 23 referred to above. They have been taken care of and considered by the Returning Officer while passing the order, Exhibit B. The order cannot be faulted. The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. -----