All these above Civil Rules involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, I propose to dispose of these Civil Rules by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners have challenged the election of the members to Gram Panchayats of Nari|Koyu Anchal Samity, Ruksin-Bilat Anchal Samity and Tuting Anchal Samity, held vide Notification No,ESD/PR-19 (P-l 1) dated Pasighat the 26th August, 1992 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat and also the appointment of Returning Officers, acceptance and scrutiny and rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officers in the said elections g and prayed for issuance of appropriate writs or directions. 3. The facts of the cases may be staled briefly as follows: His Development Commissioner, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide letter No. PR-10/90 dated 30th May, 1992 informed all the Deputy Commissioners of the districts about the Panchayati Raj Election Programme, -1992. This programme was thereafter revised by the Commissioner vide letter dated 24th June, 1992. By another notification dated 9th July, 1992 the Development Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the North East Frontier Agency Panchayati Raj Regulation, 1967 constituted Nari-Koyu, Ruksin-Bilat and Tuting Anchal Samities.The Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat issued notification revising the Panchayati Raj Programme, 1992 fixing various dates. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner through Circle Officers entertained claims, objections of the draft electoral rolls and on physical verification deleted names of several under aged and non resident voters from the draft list on various dates, namely; 18.8.92, 20.8.92 and 22.8.92. However, at the instance of some interested persons few names were again included in the list. On subsequent date ie, on 23.8.92 the petitioners went to Pasighat to lodge complaint before the Deputy Commissioner but could not do so as it was a Sunday. On 24.8.92 after hearing the complaint the Deputy Commissioner directed to delete the names of non residents and under aged persons. However, the Deputy Commissioner again reviewed his order on 25.8.92 on the ground that the last date for disposal of claims had already expired. The Deputy Commissioner published a notification for Gram Panchayat election under Rules 7 and 8 of Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972 (for short the Gram Panchayat Rules), vide notification No. ESD/PR/19 (P-l 1) dated 26th August, 1992, fixing various dates for submission of nomination papers, scrutiny and withdrawal of candidature. The Deputy Commissioner published a notification for Gram Panchayat election under Rules 7 and 8 of Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972 (for short the Gram Panchayat Rules), vide notification No. ESD/PR/19 (P-l 1) dated 26th August, 1992, fixing various dates for submission of nomination papers, scrutiny and withdrawal of candidature. As per the said notification,- 30.8.92 was fixed for submission of nomination papers. Neither the petitioners nor their proposers were allowed to enter into the premises at the time of scrutiny. The petitioners were informed that their nominations had been rejected, however without assigning any ground. Situated thus, the petitioners lodged complaints before the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to cancel the scrutiny and to re-scrutinise the nomination papers. 31.8.92 was fixed for withdrawal of candidature by the candidates or by their proposers or by person duly authorised by them. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 3.9.92 directed the petitioners to appear before him to justify their claims regarding nomination. The petitioners were heard and their claims were rejected. Because of the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners their rival candidates were returned uncontested, however, there was no declaration of result till the time of filing of these applications. 4. The petitioners state that the rule making authority in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 83 of the North East Frontier Agency Panchayat Raj Regulation, 1967 framed the Gram Panchayat Rules. The said Rules had been amended from time to time. The last amendment was made vide notification dated 14.5.92. According to the petitioners, the election of members to Gram Panchayats were illegal, void and liable to be set aside for not publishing final electoral rolls even ever publication of notification. Besides, the elections were liable to be set aside for not providing ten (10) clear days between the date of publication of notice and the last date of presentation of nomination papers and scrutiny thereof etc. and also the notification dated 26.8.92 was liable to be set aside as the said notification directed the candidates to submit nomination papers to the Returning Officer and authorising them to scrutinise the same. According to the petitioners, election to the Anchal Samities were vitiated for allowing the rival candidates to submit their nomination papers evenafter the time specified. and also the notification dated 26.8.92 was liable to be set aside as the said notification directed the candidates to submit nomination papers to the Returning Officer and authorising them to scrutinise the same. According to the petitioners, election to the Anchal Samities were vitiated for allowing the rival candidates to submit their nomination papers evenafter the time specified. The rejection of nomination papers on the ground of withdrawal by the proposers before scrutiny were also illegal and without jurisdication. Hence the present petitions. 5. First to fourth respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition controverting the averments made in the petition. However, in the said Affidavit the said respondents stated that final electoral rolls could not be published on the date as per programme due to snatching away and destruction of official documents of the Circle Officer relating to the preparation of electoral rolls by the petitioners' party. In this connection, a criminal case was also registered against some of the petitioners and their supporters. After the final publication of electoral rolls, the Circle Officer personally handed over a copy thereof for respective Gram Panchayat Constituency and the electoral rolls were made available in the office for public sale. The petitioners in fact refused to take copies of electoral rolls though they were fully aware about the final electoral rolls. 6. At the time of hearing of these Rules, the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of writ petitions. According to respondents the petitioners have relied upon various provisions of Samity Rules to substantiate their allegations. They having relied upon the Samity Rules to redress their grievances they cannot avoid the remedy provided by the Samity Rules in case of election dispute. There having alternative and efficacious remedy available in the Samity Rules and there being a specific bar to question the validity of the election of a member, the present writ petitions were not maintainable. 7. In support of their contentions, the respondents referred to Rules 7 and 8 of the Panchayat Rules and stated that these Rules clearly indicated that all relevant rules of Samity Rules regarding election of members to Anchal Samity from the stage of publication of the programme of election till the result of election becomes final had been adopted for the purpose of election of a member of the Gram Panchayat by a secret ballot system as contemplated under the Samity Rules. The amended provisions of the said Rules having been adopted, the procedure of election of members of Anchal Samity, the rule making authority impliedly adopted the provision for remedy in case of election dispute in the same manner as provided under the Samity Rules. Panchayat Rules by itself having not provided any specific remedy in case of a member of the Gram Panchayat, the remedy in that regard as prescribed by the Samity Rules was deemed to have been adopted by the Panchayat Rules. Before amendment of the Panchayat Rules election of a member of a Gram Panchayat was conducted by tribal customary method by raising hands, therefore, it was not necessary to provide any remedy in Panchayat Rules to resolve election dispute. With the amendment of the Panchayat Rules, the election was to be conducted in accordance with secret ballot system as provided for by the Samity Rules. Therefore, the remedy provided by the Samity Rules to resolve election dispute was deemed to be the remedy for settlement of election dispute to the election of a member to Gram Panchayat. 8. The respondents further stated that language of Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rules being not clear, in order to make it sensible it had to be read down into the said provisions of the Panchayat Rules that relevant provisions of the Samity Rules dealing with the election of a member of the Anchal Samity by secret ballot system from the stage of publication of programme of election till the result of the election becomes final on settlement of election disputes were adopted by the Panchayat Rules for the purpose of election of a member of Gram Panchayat. In order to give effect to the legislative intent of amending Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rules and to do away with the mischief and also for rendering purposeful interpretation of the said amended provisions, the Court has to supply the inadvertant legislative omission by reading in to the Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rules. The entire gamut of the Samity Rules relating to election of a member to Anchal Samity by secret ballot system till the stage when the declaration of election becomes final will apply in case of election of a member of the Gram Panchayat. 9. The entire gamut of the Samity Rules relating to election of a member to Anchal Samity by secret ballot system till the stage when the declaration of election becomes final will apply in case of election of a member of the Gram Panchayat. 9. The respondents further stated that Rules 38 and 39 of the Samity Rules having provided alternative efficacious remedy on the point of law as well as on facts, the writ applications were not maintainable. The Deputy Commissioner being fully conversant with every stage of election and being fairly highly ranked officer of the administration, the doctrine of necessity demands that the election dispute be decided by him. Rule 40 of the Samity Rules put a bar to question the election in any Court except under the procedure provided in the Samity Rules. 10. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that in the present case, writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were the only remedy available to the petitioners. According to them, Rule 7 of the Gram Panchayat Rules adopted the method of secret ballot system in the same manner prescribed under Arunachal Pradesh Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972 (for short "the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules") for election of members of Anchal Samity. The secret ballot system referred to in Rule 7 contemplates only upto the counting of votes in the manner prescribed under the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules. It does not contemplate declaration of result or any other process or procedure beyond counter of votes enumerated in the said Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules, else Rule 9 of the Gram Panchayat Rules would become otiose. The rule making authority by enacting Rule 9 clarified its intention that the declaration of result would be according to Gram Panchayat Rules, which in other words meant Jtiat from the stage of declaration of results the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules were not applicable in the case of Gram Panchayat Election. 11. The rule making authority by enacting Rule 9 clarified its intention that the declaration of result would be according to Gram Panchayat Rules, which in other words meant Jtiat from the stage of declaration of results the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules were not applicable in the case of Gram Panchayat Election. 11. The petitioner further contended that the language of amended Rules 7,8 and 9 of Gram Panchayat Rules clearly indicated that all the Rules of Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules were not applicable even in the conduct of Gram Panchayat election and further from the stage of declaration of result the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules were not applicable in case of election of Gram Panchayat members, otherwise, the rule making authority would not have omitted Rules 8 and 9 of the said Gram Panchayat Rules. 12. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Mazumdar put emphasis regarding maintainability of the writ petitions, inasmuch as, any dispute regarding election ought to be raised before the authority as referred to in Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules. As the petitioners have directly approached this Court without availing alternative remedy prescribed, this Court may not entertain the writ petitions and ought to be dismissed summarily. 13. Mr. Baruah, on the other hand, submitted that the procedure prescribed in the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules had been adopted in respect of conduction elections ie from the date of commencement of election process till declaration of result. The later stage of procedure having not been prescribed it cannot be used for the purpose of deciding the election dispute. There being no procedure prescribed for deciding election dispute only remedy available to the petitioners was to approach this Court by way of writ petitions. Therefore, according to him, the present petitions were maintainable and could not be said to be misconceived. 14. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties the following points require determination. (1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in law; and (ii) Whether conduction of election as referred to in the above Civil Rules are in conformity with the provisions of Rules and can sustain in law. 15. 14. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties the following points require determination. (1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in law; and (ii) Whether conduction of election as referred to in the above Civil Rules are in conformity with the provisions of Rules and can sustain in law. 15. Point No. 1 : It is an admitted fact that the election was held in secret ballot system as referred to Rule 7. Rale 7 contemplates the entire process commencing from the date of publication of programme of election till declaration of the result. Under Rule 33 of the Samity Rules, after declaration of result of an election, parties have right to prefer appeal under the said Rules. It is now to be seen whether the scheme of adoption for the purpose of holding election of the member of Gram Panchayat is extended to the settlement of e election dispute too. 16. The then Chief Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 83 of the North East Frontier Agency Panchayat Raj Regulation, 1967 read with clause (vii) of section 2 of the said Regulation as amended by clause (i) of section 21 of the North East Frontier Agency (Administation Supplementary) Regulation, 1971 made the Rules, known as "The Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972". As per the said Gram Panchayat Rules, population of a village or group of village shall be taken into consideration for specifying a village or a group of village. This Rule further empowers the Deputy Commissioner to prepare a list of adults who are ordinarily residents of the area of a Gram Panchayat concerned. Under this Rule, the Deputy Commissioner is required to publish a list of adult persons in the village or villages and thereafter objection are to be invited on the list prepared by him. Election of members of Gram Panchayat is required to be held according to tribal customary methods. The Deputy Commissioner shall appoint a Presiding Officer for conducting election, but no procedure is prescribed for holding election and deciding any election dispute. 17. Similarly, the then Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh also made Rules known as Arunachal Pradesh Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972. Rules 8, 9, 10, 12, 33, 38, 39 and 40 provide detail procedure for holding election and settlement of election dispute. 17. Similarly, the then Commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh also made Rules known as Arunachal Pradesh Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972. Rules 8, 9, 10, 12, 33, 38, 39 and 40 provide detail procedure for holding election and settlement of election dispute. From the records it appears that the procedure prescribed in the Samity Rules regarding holding of election of Gram Panchayat have been adopted. This means the entire proce-dure commencing from the date of publication of the notification regarding election till declaration of result have been adopted, but procedure for settlement of dispute have not been adopted. 18. Now the question is when the rule making authority has adopted a portion of the procedure and remained silent in respect of other portion, settlement of election dispute, whether it can be regarded as omission and whether Court can supply those omissions. It is a well settled law that the rule making authority is presumed to have made no mistake and it intended what it said. Even if there is any omission or defect, it is not for the Court to rectify it by making its own addition specially when literal meaning produces an intelligible result. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provisions are plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot remit, recast, or reframe the legislation. It has no power to legislate assuming there is a defect or omission. There is also a presumption normally that the legislature do not commit mistake or omissions. Only in case when any particular legislation leads to an absurdity, the Court may have right to supply the omissions by making alteration here and there. 19. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Panchayat Rules by itself having not provided any specific remedy in case of election dispute, the remedy in that regard prescribed by the Anchal Samity Rules cannot be incorporated in case of Gram Panchayat election. Besides, it is well settled that right to dispute an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a pure and simple statutory right. Therefore, subject to the statutory limitation concept familiar to common law and equity must remain stranger to election law unless statutorily embodied. Besides, it is well settled that right to dispute an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a pure and simple statutory right. Therefore, subject to the statutory limitation concept familiar to common law and equity must remain stranger to election law unless statutorily embodied. The remedy provided in Anchal Samity Rules to resolve election disputes cannot be deemed to be adopted by the Gram Panchayat Rules. 20. Where meaning is plain and unambiguous, ascertainment of legislative intention is not required. Provisions of Gram Panchayat Rules is quite clear and the provisions of the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules beyond the stage of declaration of result cannot be presumed to be adopted. When there is no ambiguity in the language used, it would mean the language used, speaks the mind of the legislature and there is no need to look somewhere else to discover the meaning of the language used. Therefore, Rules 38,39 and 40 of the Samity Rules cannot be said to be applicable in case of Gram Panchayat election. There is no indication anywhere that the rule making authority adopted those provisions of the Rule. 21. In considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Rules, it cannot be said that Rule 40 is a bar and there is efficacious alternative remedy. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no alternative remedy other than these writ petitions. In the absence of any specific provision for deciding the election dispute of Gram Panchayat, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have definitely right to approach this Court. However, it is for the legislature or rule making authority to consider in future for providing an adequate and appropriate forum for deciding election dispute. 22. Point No. II: In view of the above decision on the preliminary point it is now necessary to decide the petitions on merit. 23. However, it is for the legislature or rule making authority to consider in future for providing an adequate and appropriate forum for deciding election dispute. 22. Point No. II: In view of the above decision on the preliminary point it is now necessary to decide the petitions on merit. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioners made only the following submissions before me: (1) The notification dated 26.8.92 directing the candidates to submit the nomination papers to the Returning Officer and also authorising the Returning Officer to scrutinise the same and to take decision thereon was illegal as there was no provision to appoint Returning Officer over and above the Presiding Officer; (2) Nomination papers of the private respondents were accepted after expiry of time fixed for it by notification dated 26.8.92 and declaration of those respondents as elected uncontested was illegal and without jurisdiction; and (3) Rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners on the ground of withdrawal by the proposers before scrutiny without there being any written authority from the petitioners was illegal. 24. In reply to this, the learned Advocate General for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that appointment of Returning Officer was permissble under Rule 8 of the Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972 (as amended in 1992). The said provision authorises the Deputy Commissioner to appoint Presiding Officer, Polling Officer, Polling Agents etc. also may appoint Returning Officer as the list was not exhaustive. Besides the Deputy Commissioner was authorised by the Government vide Message No. PR.25/92-11 dated 7.8.92 (Annexure III to the affidavit) to make proper administrative arrangements for smooth conduct of the election. This includes the power to appoint Returning Officer and or any other body or board for the purpose of election. Nomination papers in prescribed form clearly mentioned f that it was to be submitted before the Returning Officer. This indicates that a Returning Officer was to be appointed for the election. There was no bar in the Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad Rules for appointment of Returning Officer. 25. Regarding acceptance of nomination papers after expiry of the time fixed the respondents submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to publish notice setting out the programme of election and therefore, he had the power to make alteration in the same. Extension of time to receive nomination papers was, therefore, not without any authority of law. 25. Regarding acceptance of nomination papers after expiry of the time fixed the respondents submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to publish notice setting out the programme of election and therefore, he had the power to make alteration in the same. Extension of time to receive nomination papers was, therefore, not without any authority of law. It was further submitted that the Circle Officer, Nari sent a WT Message on 29.8.92 to the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, requesting to extend the time for receiving nomination papers of Nari-Koyu Anchal Samity upto 3.45 PM due to heavy rush of candidates. The Deputy Commissioner vide message dated 30.8.92 approved the extension of time, therefore, it could not be said that the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were accepted after expiry of the time fixed. 26. The learned Advocate General for the respondents further submitted that that proposer of the petitioners on the date of scrutiny submitted petitions withdrawing their proposal. The petitioners were informed, but they remained absent at the time of scrutiny. The nomination papers were found to be incomplete for want of proposer and were, therefore, rejected. Moreover, withdrawal of the proposal was not the same as withdrawal of the candidature. Hence the guidelines referred to in the notification dated 26.8.92 with regard to withdrawal of candidature was not applicable. On the withdrawal of the proposal, the nomination papers became defective and incomplete and not in accordance with the requirement of the Rules and were, therefore, rejected under Rule 12 (3) (c) of the Anchal Samity Rules. 27. Before I decide the matter it will be apposite to consider few provi-sions of the Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 1992 as well as the Arunachal Pradesh Anchal Samity and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972. 28. Under Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat as amended upto 1992, the Deputy Commissioner shall, not less than fifteen days before the date fixed for election of the members of the Gram Panchayat, cause to be published a notice in language or languages stating the date, place and time of election of the members of the Gram Panchayat by the method of secret ballot system in the same manner prescribed under various Rules of the Arunachal Pradesh Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972 for election of the members of Anchal Samity. Rule 8 states that the Deputy Commissioner shall appoint Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and Polling Agent etc. for each place of election in the same manner prescribed for conducting election of the member of Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad (Constitution) Rules, 1972. Rule 9 states that the Presiding Officer shall conduct the election and declare the names of the persons elected as members of Gram Panchayat. 29. As per Rule 12 of the Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad Rules, any person whose name appears in the list published by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 6 (3) of the said Rules and who is not disqualified under section 7 of the Regulation, may be nominated as a candidate for election as a member of the Anchal Samity by submitting a nomination paper signed by any member of the Gram Panchayat as proposer and by the candidate in token of his consent to stand as a candidate. The nomination paper shall be delivered either by the candidate or by his proposer to the Presiding Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 9 who shall be present on the days and at the time and the place or places notified for presentation of nomination papers and scrutiny thereof. However, nothing thereafter shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination papers and the Presiding Officer shall examine the nomination papers and give the candidates or their proposers reasonable opportunity to examine the nomination papers. He shall decide the objections, if any , on the spot by summary enquiry. He, either on his own initiative or on an objection received may, reject on the grounds (a) to (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, provided that nothing in clauses (c) or (d) shall be deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination papers of the candidates on the grounds of irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by means of other nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed. Rule 33 provides that declaration by the Presiding Officer as to the election of the member to the Anchal Samity by the member of the Gram Panchayat shall be final subject to such right of appeal as is allowed under these Rules. 30. Rule 33 provides that declaration by the Presiding Officer as to the election of the member to the Anchal Samity by the member of the Gram Panchayat shall be final subject to such right of appeal as is allowed under these Rules. 30. From the reading of the above Rules, it is clear that an interval of at least 10 (ten) days shall be allowed between the date of publication of notice and the last date for presentation of nomination papers and scrutiny. The Deputy Commissioner is empowered to appoint Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and Polling Agents for the purpose of conducting election. Besides, the Presiding Officer shall conduct the election and declare the name of the persons elected as members of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have challenged that no Clear ten days was given from the date of publication of a notice and the last date for presentation of nomination papers and scrutiny thereof. However, this has not been specifically controverted by the respondents in their affidavit. In the course of argument before this Court also the learned Advocate General did not dispute the same. 31. Regarding validity of the notification dated 26.8.92 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the counsel for the petitioners contended that this notification was illegal and void, inasmuch as, the Deputy Commissioner had no authority and jurisdiction to appoint Returning Officer over and above the Presiding Officer. The learned Advocate General for the respondents, however, contended that it was permissible under the provisions of Rule 8 of Gram Panchayat Rules (as amended in 1992). These Rules had been amended by notification dated 7th May, 1992 and published in the Arunachal Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette on 23rd May, 1992. As per the said amendment the principal Rules were substituted by the new provisions quoted above. As per the said provisions, the Deputy Commissioner has been authorised to appoint Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and Polling Agents for each place of election in the same manner prescribed for conducting election of the member of Anchal Samiti and Zilla Parishad. However, this amended Rule does not prescribe any provision for appointment of Returning Officer. The Rule only speaks of appointment of Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and Polling Agents. The learned Advocate General for the respondents could not show any provision under this Rules empowering Deputy Commissioner to appoint Returning Officer. However, this amended Rule does not prescribe any provision for appointment of Returning Officer. The Rule only speaks of appointment of Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and Polling Agents. The learned Advocate General for the respondents could not show any provision under this Rules empowering Deputy Commissioner to appoint Returning Officer. However, the Advocate General submitted that as per Government message, Annexure III to the affidavit-in-opposition, the Deputy Commissioner was authorised to make proper administrative arrangement for smooth conduct of the election. The learned Advocate General emphasised that the Deputy Commissioner had power to appoint Returning Officer for smooth conduct of election. He put much emphasis to the nomination papers in the prescribed form, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that nomination papers are to be submitted to the Returning Officer. Thereby, he submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had the power to appoint Returning Officer. Besides, there being no specific bar for appointment of Returning Officer under the Rules, the appointment of Returning Officer could not be said to be illegal. 32. On going through the Rules, I find that the Rules do not provide any provision for appointment of Returning Officer. Notification dated 26.8.92 issued by the Deputy Commissioner was in exercise of power under Rules 7 and 8 of the Gram Panchayat Rules. In the said notification the intending candidates were directed to submit nomination papers to the Returning Officers of the Gram Panchayat. The counsel for the petitioner had objection in this regard. There being no provision for appointment of Returning Officer, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to direct the intending candidates to submit their nomination papers to the Returning Officer. On perusal of the Rule, it is abundantly clear that there is no provision for appointment of Returning Officer and this being so the notification dated 26.8.92 directing the candidates to submit nomination papers to the Returning Officer was illegal and without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the notification being not in accordance with the provisions of Rules, it cannot sustain in law. 33. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioners was that declaration of private respondents as elected uncontested even though they had submitted their nomination papers after expiry of the time specified as per notification dated 26.8.92 was illegal. In my opinion, the notification being not in accordance with the provisions of Rules, it cannot sustain in law. 33. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioners was that declaration of private respondents as elected uncontested even though they had submitted their nomination papers after expiry of the time specified as per notification dated 26.8.92 was illegal. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to publish notice setting out the programme of election, therefore, he had the power to make alteration of time and extension of time was therefore, not without any authority of law. It was also submitted that this had to be done because there was heavy rush of the candidates at the last hour for submission of nomination papers and in order to give facilities to the candidates, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in extending time. The Rule empowers the Deputy Commissioner to fix the time and place for submission of nomination papers, however, it does not prescribe any provision for extension of time under any circumstance. It is well established that election law should be strictly construed and it must be done in the same manner as prescribed or not at all. It cannot be changed or altered. Extension of time has not been contemplated in the Rules. Therefore, in my opinion, it was without sanction of law and the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to do so. 34. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the nomination papers were rejected on the ground that proposals had been withdrawn by the proposers without any written authority as required under the Rules and that too on the date of scrutiny. The learned Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the proposers of the petitioners on the date of scrutiny submitted petitions withdrawing their proposal and the petitioners were informed of it, but they remained absent at the time of scrutiny. The nomination papers were found incomplete and accordingly those were rejected. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the nomination papers were found invalid for lack of proposers, therefore, those were rightly rejected. 35. As per the said notification dated 26.8.92 the candidate may by himself or by his proposer being authorised in writing withdraw his candidature, however, the notification did not indicate as to whether the proposer could withdraw his proposal after submission of nomination papers. 35. As per the said notification dated 26.8.92 the candidate may by himself or by his proposer being authorised in writing withdraw his candidature, however, the notification did not indicate as to whether the proposer could withdraw his proposal after submission of nomination papers. In my opinion, when a candidate submitted his nomination, the candidate may withdraw the nomination paper by himself or through his proposer duly authorised in writing The proposer cannot withdraw his proposal without intimating the candidate. If such thing is allowed the candidate after submissions of nomination papers shall always be at the mercy of the proposer. Law cannot encourage such things. Therefore, in my opinion, the proposer shall have no right to withdraw his proposal without written permission from the candidate after submission of nomination paper. Therefore, rejection of nomination papers on the ground of withdrawal of the proposal is illegal and without sanction of law. 36. In view of my above discussions, I allow the writ petitions and set aside the notification dated 26.8.92 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat appointing the Returning Officer and the election of the returned candidates of the respective Gram Panchayats are also set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.