JUDGMENT This petition deals with interpretation of section 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Before dealing with the facts, it would be apt to notice the provision itself. It reads as under : "Section 41-Bar to hold more than one Office -- If any person is elected to more than one office in Gram Panchayat Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat he shall within 15 days from the date of declaration of result of such election, inform the prescribed authority in writing about holding one of the office. If such information is not received within the said period he shall deemed to hold one office only in the following order of priority to the exclusion of the remaining : (a) a member of Zila Panchayat, (b) a member of Janpad Panchayat, (c) a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, (d) a panch of Gram Panchayat." The present petitioner was elected as panch of Gram Panchayat Soikala. He was also elected as member of the Janpad Panchayat Sheopurkalan. This happened on 9th of June, 1995. He was supposed to give his option in terms of section 41 of the Act. He did not give his option. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the block passed an order to the effect that the petitioner would be deemed to have vacated the office of the Member-ship of Janapad Panchayat. This was done on the basis of one factor. This factor is that the petitioner had taken part in the process of casting his vote in the election to the office of Sarpanch. It be seen that for taking part in the process of electing a Sarpanch, only a panch of Gram Panchayat is eligible. It is this act of casting vote which has been construed as an option. No option or information in writing was ever given. I am of the view that when a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner than that act must be done in that particular manner alone. The petitioner was supposed to give his option within a period of fifteen days. This information had to be in writing. He has not given any such information in writing. Therefore, the letter of the law will take its course on failure to inform in writing. Provision of section 41 of the Act, would come into force. The petitioner was supposed to give his option within a period of fifteen days. This information had to be in writing. He has not given any such information in writing. Therefore, the letter of the law will take its course on failure to inform in writing. Provision of section 41 of the Act, would come into force. The net result would be that the petitioner would continue as member of Janpad Panchayat and not as Panch. This is the plain reading of section 41 of the Act. As the petitioner did not give his option, by operation of law he would be deemed to have vacated the office of Panch. The petitioner for a fifteen days, continued to be a Panch also and as such he could enjoy this privilege as well. As such, the order passed to contrary by the Chief Executive Officer, that the petitioner would be deemed to have vacated the office of Janpad Panchayat is not the correct appreciation of the statutory provisions. This petition is allowed and the order annexure P/1 is set aside. It be seen that merely because the petitioner cast his vote to the post of up-sarpanch or that he was not permitted to cast vote when elections were held to the office of Janpad is not relevant because merely because a person had been deprived to vote or he has voted to a particular election is of no consequence. See Prakash Chand v. State of Punjab and others, (AIR 1977 P & H) 26. It was observed as under : "I am, therefore, clearly of the view that mere participation of such persons who could not legally vote, would not by itself lead to an inference that the result of the election has been materially affected." Disposed of as indicated above.