JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the Judgment dated 20.7.1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3271 of 1994, by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants was dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows: 3. The petitioner-appellants are citizens of India and at present, they reside at village Basir Tehsil Tibi District Sri Ganganagar. Their names have been shown in the electoral rolls for the Rajasthan STate Assembly of the years 1983, 1988 and 1993 and the photostat copies of the entries to this effect have been filed by the petitioner-appellants alongwith the writ petition marked as Annexures 1, 2 and 3. The names of the petitioner-appellants have also been shown in the voters list of the Gram Panchayats at Serial Numbers 14 and 15 of the year 1992. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 Shri Surain Singh: who has got enmity with the petitioner-appellants, moved an application before the Authorised Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Hanumangarh on 20.4.1988 in accordance With R. 8(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Up-Samiti Election Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') alleging therein that the petitioner- appellants are not the residents of village Basir and they are not Jangir Singh and Budha Bai. He, therefore, prayed that their names be deleted from the voters list of the Panchayat.On the application of Shri Surain Singh, the Authorised Officer obtained the report from the Tehsildar and the latter obtained report from the Patwari. The authorised Officer by his order dated 27.4.1988 allowed the application of said Surain Singh and ordered deletion of the names of the petitioner-appellants from the voters list of Panchayat. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner-appellants filed an appeal before the learned Additional Collector, Hanumangarh, which was allowed on 25.2.1991 and the matter was remanded back to the Authorised Officer for deciding the case afresh after making proper enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is alleged that pursuant to the remand order, the learned Authorised Officer did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- appellants and decided the matter again vide Order dated 27.11.1992 allowing the objection of said Shri Surain Singh. It is alleged that pursuant to the remand order, the learned Authorised Officer did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- appellants and decided the matter again vide Order dated 27.11.1992 allowing the objection of said Shri Surain Singh. The petitioner-appellants again preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Authorised Officer before the learned Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 30.3.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner- appellants filed writ petition before this Court and the learned single Judge vide his order dated 20.7.1994 dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. K.C. Samdariya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants, Mr. Hernant Choudhary, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Kulwant Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants assailed the order of the learned single Judge as well as the orders passed by the learned appellate authority and the Authorised Officer on the ground that the petitioner-appellants produced clinching evidence before the learned Authorised Officer and on the basis of that evidence, the objection ought to have been dismissed but the objection was allowed en. some extraneous considerations. The learned counsel has referred to the voters list and the electoral rolls for the Rajasthan State Assembly for the years 1983, 1988 and 1993 and also other documents which conclusively prove that the petitioner-appellants lived in village Basir. According to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat Circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat Circle or Ward as the case may be. 7. The second grievance of the learned counsel was that after the remand order the learned Authorised Officer did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- appellants and the matter was decided rather exparte and hence, the important documents produced by the petitioner-appellants relating to this matter were not at all considered and the matter was decided to the prejudice of the petitioner-appellants. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mathuralal & Anr. v. Mandatisingh & Ors., 1982 VVLN (HC) 171 . 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order as well as the orders of the appellate authority and the Authorised Officer.We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 9. In Mathuralal's case (supra), while dealing with Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and R. 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960, it was held by this Court that in case of objection to the inclusion of the name of a person in the voters list, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the concerned voter. Such an objection cannot be decided without such opportunity. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner-appellants is that pursuant to the remand order of the appellate authority dated 25.2.1991, the learned Authorised Officer decided the matter without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellants. The learned Authorised Officer, therefore. committed an illegality in denying an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellants. 10. We are, therefore, inclined to remand the case back to the learned Authorised Officer. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed ad the order dated 20.7.1994 passed by the learned single J e is s aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Authorised Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellants and to consider the relevant law and particularly Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and the documents and evidence produced or may be produced by the petitioner-appellants, within a period of three months from today.In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Special Appeal allowed. *******