ORDER 1. Gone are the days of yore when a woman was required to playa secondary role in society and surrender to the injunctions and mandates of its high priests and tolerate the community commands with Himalayan calmness and pacific . poise. With the passage of time, scenario has changed and the woman, in addition to her duties in the domestic front, has also come out to undertake the responsibilities in the public field as permitted by the provisions of law and sustained by its majesty. History has many an example and the repetitions are bound to occur, for history repeats itself. Here is a petitioner who has refused to accept the infringement of her right to continue as the President, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur and has called in question the warrantable-ness of the order (Ann. P-8) passed by the District Electoral Officer (Panchayat), respondent No.3 herein, and the sustainability of the order (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur by which she has been deprived of the privilege of her continuance in the said elected post by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts as have been uncurtained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Khamaria and her name finds place in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat at Serial No. 770, Ward No. 14 of village Khamaria, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. The electoral roll was published in the year 1994. In consonance with the 73rd amendment of the Constitution the State of Madhya Pradesh in consultation with the State Election Commission announced elections to the three-tier Panchayat Raj system in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Act 1 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the gazette extraordinary on 25.1.94 and under the said Act, M.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Rules') were framed. As enjoined in the said Rules under Chapter III, a voters' list was published on 2.4.94 and after following due procedure as envisaged under the said Rules the voters' list was published and the petitioner's name was reflected at Serial No. 770 in the said list. As enjoined in the said Rules under Chapter III, a voters' list was published on 2.4.94 and after following due procedure as envisaged under the said Rules the voters' list was published and the petitioner's name was reflected at Serial No. 770 in the said list. It is pleaded that the petitioner had not applied for inclusion of her name in the electoral roll but the same was included on the basis of survey conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer. It is set-forth that as the petitioner is a resident of house No. 253 of village Khamaria, her inclusion in the electoral roll was quite natural. The said house belongs to one Sunder Das Manikpuri and has been let out on rent to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid entry the petitioner was entitled to contest election for Ward No. 34 of Takhatpur and accordingly she contested and ultimately was elected as member of Zila Panchayat. It is stated that the post of President, Zila Panchayat. Bilaspur under the scheme of the Act has been reserved for a general woman candidate. The petitioner who is a member of backward class was entitled to contest in the election of President of Zila Panchayat. She contested for the post of President and was elected on 26.6.94. It has been pleaded that before filing nomination for election as member of Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, she had applied for deletion of her name from the Electoral Roll of Bilaspur, Municipal Corporation on 11.2.94 and the said application was filed much before the election programme for the Panchayat was notified. After the petitioner was elected, an election dispute under section 122 of the Act was filed by one Bhanu Yadav calling in question the propriety of the election of the petitioner. One of the grounds urged in the petition was that petitioner's name was erroneously included in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat Khamaria as she is not ordinarily a resident of that village. The Revenue Commissioner, Bilaspur heard the Election Petition and framed a specific issue on the question as to whether the petitioner is ordinarily a resident of village Khamaria and her name has been duly included in the electoral roll of that village. the said issue was supported by the Returning Officer who was imp-leaded as a respondent to the Election Petition. the said issue was supported by the Returning Officer who was imp-leaded as a respondent to the Election Petition. However, the Election Tribunal on other grounds allowed the Election Petition and set aside the election of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court forming the subject matter of W.P. No. 778/95 and this Court by order dated 10.5.95 set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. By virtue of the order of this Court the petitioner continued in the office of the President, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur. It is alleged in the petition as the Election Petition did not succeed against the petitioner the vested interests with the connivance of the District Administration contrived a design to dislodge the petitioner from the office of the President, Zila Panchayat. Accordingly, on 8.2.96 a notice was issued by the District Electoral Registration Officer (Local Elections) to the petitioner alleging that the name of the petitioner was included in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat Khamaria by fraud and she should show-cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken for correction of the entry in the electoral roll. A copy of the notice dated 8.2.96 has been brought on record as Annexure P-4. It is put-forth in the petition that the said notice was purported to have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority under rule 21 of Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960. It has also been stated that illegality was pointed out in relation to Panchayat Act, though the remedial measure was proposed to be taken under the Rules made under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. It is alleged that the notice was served on the petitioner on 14.2.96 and as it was not practically possible for her to produce her witnesses on the date i.e. 15.2.96, she appeared before the District Electoral Registration Officer and requested him to grant reasonable time for producing her witnesses. The said authority assured the petitioner that no proceeding would take place and the matter was adjourned to 26.2.96. However, the said Authority on 15.2.96 recorded the deposition of as many as 25 witnesses and all of them were examined behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to her to cross-examine the witnesses. The matter was, however, adjourned to 26.2.96. However, the said Authority on 15.2.96 recorded the deposition of as many as 25 witnesses and all of them were examined behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to her to cross-examine the witnesses. The matter was, however, adjourned to 26.2.96. On the adjourned date the petitioner filed a reply controverting the allegations levelled against her. She filed affidavits of 26 residents of village Khamaria including the affidavit of 'Up-sarpanch' and seven 'Panchas' of Village Panchayat, Khamaria and the affidavit of the landlord to substantiate her stand that she is ordinarily a resident of Khamaria. She also requested the District Electoral Registration Officer for recalling of the witnesses examined on 15.2.% for the purpose of cross-examination. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 2.3.96 on which date the petitioner was examined by respondent No.3. She filed receipts in relation to her house situate at village Khamaria. She also produced the order passed by the Election Tribunal. The matter stood adjourned to 4.3.96. Thereafter, on 14.3.96 a report was published in the newspaper that her name has been deleted from the electoral roll. After coming to know about the same from the newspapers she found out that the final order was passed by the District Electoral Registration Officer on 13.3.96. Challenging the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Election Commission which refused to accept the appeal on the ground that there was no provision under the Acts or Rules for filing of such appeal. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat taking recourse to the provision enshrined under sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Act passed an order on 10.4.96 declaring the office of the President of Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur to be vacant. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure P-IO. On 18.4.96 a letter was issued to her directing her to return the vehicle which was allotted in her favour. The aforesaid orders are the cause of distress of the petitioner which are sought to be impugned before this Court. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the whole action of the District Electoral Registration Officer is without jurisdiction being contrary to the Act and the Rules. The aforesaid orders are the cause of distress of the petitioner which are sought to be impugned before this Court. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the whole action of the District Electoral Registration Officer is without jurisdiction being contrary to the Act and the Rules. It is put-forth that the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend herself to establish that she is ordinarily a resident of village Khamaria. It is also stated that the respondent No. 3 the District Electoral Registration Officer (Panchayat) has no authority to delete her name from the electoral roll as she is the appellate authority. It is also averred that the scheme of the Act and Rules framed therein do not permit any authority for interference with the final voters' list and, therefore, the action is totally without jurisdiction which vitiates the order passed by the respondent No.3 and the consequent order passed by the respondent No.4. 4. A return has been filed by the respondent No.1, the Secretary in the Department of Panchayat Raj, that a detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No.3 which is the main contesting party. It is also put-forth that no relief has been claimed against the State Govt. hence it is not a necessary party. It is to be noted here in its reply to I.A. No. 4258/96, an application for taking subsequent facts on record for issuance of interim order the respondent No.1 had filed its reply stating its stand that the Collector (District Returning Officer) Panchayat under the supervision and control of State Election Commission had already filed a reply in W.P. No. 1428/95 indicating that the petitioner's name was not found in the provisional voters' list but was included in the final voters' list in a fraudulent manner. 5. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is not ordinarily a resident of village Khamaria and, in fact, she is ordinarily a resident of Bilaspur and her name finds place at Serial No. 116 of voters' list of Bilaspur constituency. It has been so stated in her application for grant of caste certificate. Certain documents have also been filed along-with the counter affidavit to establish that the petitioner is a resident of Bilaspur. It has been so stated in her application for grant of caste certificate. Certain documents have also been filed along-with the counter affidavit to establish that the petitioner is a resident of Bilaspur. It is put-forth that the Additional Collector, Bilaspur on 24.1.96 submitted a report after due inquiry in which he found that the house No. 254 situate at Ward No. 14 of Gram Panchayat, Khamaria is occupied by one Sunder Ramdas and his wife and their names had been mentioned at Serial No. 769 and 770 in the provisional voters' list as well as in the finally prepared voters' list and there was no amendment/correction/modification but at the time of preparation of cyclo styled copies of the voters' list it was tampered and the names of Basant Mulkalwar and the petitioner were substituted. The said report has been brought on record as Annexure R-6. The voters' list of village Khamaria and the order of 1993 have also been brought on record. It is alleged that as the voters' list was manipulated the petitioner was able to contest in the election. It is also stated that the voters' list was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Gram Panchayats Election Rules, 1994. It is stated that as there was tampering with the voters' list an inquiry was conducted which revealed that fraud had been committed at the behest of the petitioner and accordingly steps were taken to rectify the defect. It is also stated that the Election Tribunal had opined that the allegation that her name in the voters' list was incorporated by fraud was not proved by the election petitioner and the said order was under challenge in W.P. No. 1428/95 at the behest of the present petitioner. It is worthwhile to note here that at the time of filing of return the writ petition was pending for adjudication by this Court but at the time of hearing of this petition the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside on the ground that the election petition was defective and, therefore, the propriety of the petitioner's election could not be adjudicated. It is also pleaded that exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the electoral roll does not amount to revision of the electoral roll, and hence permissible in law. It is also pleaded that exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the electoral roll does not amount to revision of the electoral roll, and hence permissible in law. It has also been contended that if an act has been done by fraud the same can be undone or rectified at any time. It is put-forth as soon as a complaint was received by the respondent No. 3 he proceeded to conduct an inquiry and revise the electoral roll accordingly. It is also set forth that this is not a case where an inquiry was made in order to revise the electoral roll but the enquiry was conducted as there was tampering and manipulation with the finally published voters' list. There is reference to the proceeding by the Registration Officer to show that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. the respondents have further stated that the whole action was taken in order to implement the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 in its letter and spirit, and the person competent has conducted the inquiry and there is no transgression of the Rules. 6. An additional return has been filed by the respondent No.3 indicating that election to the M.P. State Assembly was held in November-December, 1993 and before such election a voters' list in respect of Assembly Constituency No. 115 Takhatpur including Gram Panchayat, Khamaria was published. The same voters' list which was published before 1993 election was published as provisional voters' list before the commencement of the election to the Gram Panchayat and Zila Panchayat ofBilaspurdistrict.1t is stated that this provisional voters' list is, in fact, the voters' list prepared and published at the time of Assembly Election. It has been brought on record as Annexure R-7. In the additional counter affidavit the answering respondents have brought on record the complete provisional voters' list as well as in the final voters' list the name of the petitioner did not find place. The application filed by the petitioner for caste certificate before the Tahsildar Bilaspur has been brought on record as Annexure R-20. The revised voters' list of 1995 which does not include the name of the petitioner or her husband has been annexed as Annexure R-21. 7. The application filed by the petitioner for caste certificate before the Tahsildar Bilaspur has been brought on record as Annexure R-20. The revised voters' list of 1995 which does not include the name of the petitioner or her husband has been annexed as Annexure R-21. 7. A further additional return has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 indicating that the petitioner and her husband had submitted their applications on 25.7.95 for inclusion of their names in the voters' list of village Khamaria, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur on 26.7.95. Objections were received opposing the inclusion of their names. An enquiry was held and eventually the application for inclusion was rejected on 12.12.95. It is also put-forth that the State Election Commission issued an order dated 10.9.96 vide Annexure R-22 for preparation of voters' list in view of the Constitution of Panchayat and By-election to be held in the Panchayats already constituted and pursuance to the same another application of the petitioner was received on 26.10.96. The petitioner had appeared -before the Assistant Registrikaran Adhikari after conducting an inquiry the Assistant Registrikaran Adhikari rejected the application on 1.11.96. As alleged, the aforesaid order has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is also mentioned that the Chief Electoral Officer, M.P., Bhopal wrote a letter to the Returning Officer of M.P. State Legislative Assembly, Constituency No. 115 for publication of the election to the 115 assembly constituency. It is further stated that the petitioner had made further attempt to get her name included in village Khamaria which was eventually rejected on 17.10.97 after due enquiry. .It is averred that the orders of rejection refusing to include the name of the petitioner in the voters' list of Khamaria have become final. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a registered voter in the voters' list of 116 assembly constituency at Serial No. 228 from house No. 44/1 Indira Nagar Ward No. 22 and her name had appeared in the voters' list of Municipal corporation, Bilaspur of the year 1994 at Serial No. 228. It is further put-forth that as the petitioner was registered as a voter in an urban area falling under the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, she could not have been registered as a voter in village Khamaria in 1994, for she could not have become a voter simultaneously at two places falling under different local authorities. It is further put-forth that as the petitioner was registered as a voter in an urban area falling under the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, she could not have been registered as a voter in village Khamaria in 1994, for she could not have become a voter simultaneously at two places falling under different local authorities. An affidavit sworn to by the husband of the petitioner to be a resident of Dayalband, Bilaspur has also been brought on record. It is also pointed out that the appellate authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and, therefore, the averment that the original order has been passed by the appellate authority is factually not correct. 8. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the additional return filed by the respondent No.3. It has been emphasized in the said affidavit that the findings of the Election Tribunals, Commissioner (Revenue) Division Bilaspur have been affirmed by the Apex Court and, therefore, the issue was not subject to be reopened. It is also put-forth that the subsequent events not to include the name of the petitioner in the voters' list of village Panchayat Khamaria does not affect the findings arrived at by the Election Tribunal and the whole process of cancellation/deletion of her name from the electoral roll of village Panchayat Khamaria being without jurisdiction cannot be justified or supported by subsequent action. It is also put-forth that the petitioner and her husband had submitted a application on 25.7.95 for preparation of voters' identity cards as at that time by the orders of Chief Election Commissioner, voters' identity cards were being prepared. After passing of the order on 13.3.96 whereby the name of the petitioner has been directed to be deleted from the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat, Khamaria the petitioner had made applications on 11.9.96, 26.10.96 and 14.10.97 for inclusion of her name in the electoral foil for the By-election of Vidhan Sabha and Lok Sabha and this aspect has not been deliberately stated by the respondent No.3. It is also putforth that before filing the nomination for election as a member of Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur the petitioner had applied for deletion of her name from the electoral roll of Bilaspur Municipal Corporation on 11.2.94 and, in fact, the application was filed much before the election programme of Panchayat was notified i.e. 1.5.94. It is also putforth that before filing the nomination for election as a member of Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur the petitioner had applied for deletion of her name from the electoral roll of Bilaspur Municipal Corporation on 11.2.94 and, in fact, the application was filed much before the election programme of Panchayat was notified i.e. 1.5.94. Apart from this the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer as appellate authority has been disputed. 9. An application for intervention was filed by one Ambikabai who has been added as respondent No.5. The said respondent No.5 has also filed a return contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is not ordinarily a resident of village Khamaria. She has placed reliance on the return filed by the Collector, Bilaspur in W.P. No. 1428/95 (Smt. Ambikabai v. Basant Mulkalwar and others) in which the State had clarified the position. The return filed by the functionaries of the State has been brought on record as Annexure R-5-1. It is also put-forth that the petitioner contested the election for M.P. Legislative Assembly from Takhatpur constituency in 1990-93 in which she had mentioned her address as Dayalband, Bilaspur. It is also pleaded that as the petitioner's name has already been deleted from the voters' list the findings of the Election Tribunal are of no consequence. The rejection order passed by the competent authority refusing to include her name in the voters' list prepared for Assembly Election of Takhatpur constituency has also been brought on record. 10. I have referred to the pleadings of the parties in great detail in the foregoing paragraphs though the controversy which requires to be adjudicated in this writ petition lies in a narrow compass. Occasions do arise and phenomena do crop up in course of a litigation where adroit attempts and ingenious efforts are made to create a labyrinth so that the real controversy gets immersed in a whirlpool and the issues which are not precisely germane and exactly requisite surface to gain dominance by effacing the issue that the Court is required to adjudicate. Sometimes this happens due to anxiety and over exuberance of the litigating parties. Diversions, may not be deliberate, but they do occur to focus beyond the object. The reflections do not project the real in fact, they camouflage and conceal the actual. But for nothing, it was pronounced by Nobel Laureate Samuel Beckett in his famous play "Waiting for Godot". Sometimes this happens due to anxiety and over exuberance of the litigating parties. Diversions, may not be deliberate, but they do occur to focus beyond the object. The reflections do not project the real in fact, they camouflage and conceal the actual. But for nothing, it was pronounced by Nobel Laureate Samuel Beckett in his famous play "Waiting for Godot". "In this immense confusion one thing alone is clear, we are waiting for Godot". Similarly, the seminal singular legal issue that surfaces (without pausing and pondering over the unnecessary issues raised) for consideration is whether the cancellation/deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voters' list by the respondent No.3 in exercise of power under M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 and M.P. Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994 is justified and supportable in law. The sap of the matter being thus, this Court shall confine its adjudication in that regard in spite of the embroglio created by the over zealous protagonists and co-ad-jutors. 11. I have heard Mr. V.K. Tankha and Mrs. J. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Dr. N.K. Shukla for the respondent No.5. 12. It is contended by Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner that after finalisation of the election dispute no authority has jurisdiction to take recourse to any action to unseat an Elected President of the Zila Panchayat. He has built up his argument by contending that the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal are binding on the authorities. His further submission is that the provisions under the Rules do not confer any power on the respondent No.3, the District Electoral Registration Officer, Panchayat to revise/modify/rectify any voters' list after the election is over. It is proponed by him that the authority while causing an enquiry with regard to the validity of the voters' list has not followed the principles of natural justice which makes the order susceptible. It is also canvassed by him that the appellate authority has passed the order of cancellation/deletion by substituting himself as the original authority which is not permissible in law. Controverting the aforesaid submissions Mr. It is also canvassed by him that the appellate authority has passed the order of cancellation/deletion by substituting himself as the original authority which is not permissible in law. Controverting the aforesaid submissions Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has urged with vehemence that when a fraud had been committed by the petitioner the respondent No.3 was within his jurisdiction to take appropriate steps to bring things to order. It is his further submission that a benefit obtained by fraud could not be allowed to continue as that would be against the basic norms of justice and propriety. It is put-forth by Mr. Agrawal that this Court while adjudicating the writ petition arising out of the election dispute set aside the order passed by the Election Tribunal on a technical ground and when the order of the Tribunal has been set aside the finding recorded therein by the Election Tribunal have lost their significance and, therefore, cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. In any case, they do not operate as res judicata, contends Mr. Agrawal. It is his further submission that the petitioner's name has been duly excluded and as the petitioner ceased to be a voter in respect of Gram Panchayat she cannot continue as a President of the Zila Panchayat as enjoined under section 34(2) of the Act. Mr. R.K. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has supported the action taken by the authorities. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 5 has referred to the documents which have been brought on record to highlight that the petitioner was instrumental in getting her name included in the voters' list in a fraudulent manner and, therefore, the deletion thereof is justified in law. He has referred to rule 12 of the Elections Rules, 1994. It is also contended by him that the contention that the appellate authority has adjudicated the matter is not correct as the appellate authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.4 has referred to the provisions of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 framed under the Representation of the People's Act, 1950 to indicate that the respondent No.3 has the authority to initiate a proceeding for cancellation. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.4 has referred to the provisions of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 framed under the Representation of the People's Act, 1950 to indicate that the respondent No.3 has the authority to initiate a proceeding for cancellation. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents that as there has been subsequent orders by the competent authority not to include the name of the petitioner and the said orders having gone unchallenged the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 13. I have indicated earlier that this Court would only address itself with regard to the validity of the orders passed on 13.3.96 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 10.4.96 (Annexure P-I 0). Let me first (1eal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once a finding has been recorded by the Election Tribunal that the entry of the petitioner in the voters' list was final and beyond reproach, it was binding on the authorities. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner herself in W.P. No. 778/95. This Court while allowing the writ petition held that the election petition was not competent and, therefore, the final order passed on merit whether the petitioner belongs to other backward classes or not becomes redundant. As the election petition was incompetent it can safely be concluded that the findings recorded thereon cannot be regarded to have attained finality. This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction has held that the election petition was not competent. As a necessary corollary it has to flow that a finding given in an incompetent proceeding cannot be given the status of finality. I may hasten to add here that Mr. R.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 had cited number of decisions in support of his contention that the findings are not final and not binding. As I have already held, the finding returned in an incompetent proceeding cannot be given the privilege of finality, and the said issue pales into insignificance for what is going to be stated by this Court at a later stage, the decisions cited by Mr. Agrawal need not be referred to. 14. It is next contended by Mr. Tankha that the respondent No.3 has no authority to rectify or modify the voters ',list after the election is over. Submission of Mr. Agrawal need not be referred to. 14. It is next contended by Mr. Tankha that the respondent No.3 has no authority to rectify or modify the voters ',list after the election is over. Submission of Mr. Tankha is that the election of the candidate can be annulled as prescribed under the law not in any other manner. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Khumano Bai v. State of M.P. and others, 1995 MPLJ 67 wherein this Court has held that acceptance of certain nomination in an erroneous manner and the resultant election thereof cannot be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of the Article 243-O of the Constitution. In this regard I may profitably refer to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India which reads as under :- "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters -(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." The aforesaid constitutional mandate makes it luminously clear that validity of an election can only be questioned by an election petition as provided under any law made by Legislature of the State. In view of the aforesaid, submits Mr. Tankha, the election of the petitioner to the post of President of the Zila Panchayat could not have been nullified by the respondent No.4. The gravamen of the contention of the counsel is that a novel method has been adopted to unseat the petitioner and such an action can not be countenanced. The proposition proponed by Mr. Tankha commends acceptance as no election of any Panchayat can be called in question except by an election dispute. But, it is urged by Mr. Agrawal, Mr. Tiwari and Mr. The proposition proponed by Mr. Tankha commends acceptance as no election of any Panchayat can be called in question except by an election dispute. But, it is urged by Mr. Agrawal, Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Singh that the election of the petitioner was not assailed but an enquiry was caused by the respondent No.3 with regard to the manipulation made by the petitioner to get her name entered into the voters' list which was produced before the Returning Officer. Me Agrawal has submitted that fraud vitiates each and every action as it goes to the very root of the matter. Mr. Tiwari has strenuously urged that the fraudulent action of the petitioner cannot be tolerated and she cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of her own deliberate fraudulent action. It is also canvassed by them that the order passed vide Annexure P-10 indicated that the post of the President of the concerned Gram Panchayat had fallen vacant that being the natural consequence of the cancellation/deletion of her name from the voters' list as by virtue of such deletion she ceased to be voter thereby allowing free play of the provisions enshrined under section 34(2) of the Act. It is also urged with vehemence that her name could not have been entered in the voters' list of village Khamaria as she was already a voter in respect of municipal area in Bilaspur. 15. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar in this regard it is relevant to refer to section 5 of the Act which reads as under: "5. Registration of voters of village -- Every person who is qualified to be registered in the Assembly roll relatable to a village or whose name is entered therein and is ordinarily resident within the village shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of that village: Provided that – (a) no person shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters for more than one village; (b) no person shall be entitled to be registered in the list of Voters if he is registered in the electoral roll relating to and other local authority. Explanation – (1) The expression "ordinarily resident" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (No. 43 of 950) subject to the modification that reference to "constituency" therein will be construed as a reference to "village". (2) A person shall be disqualified for registration in the list of voters of a village if he is disqualified for registration in the Assembly roll." The other relevant section of the Act is section 34 which reads as under :- 34. "First meeting and term of office -- (1) First meeting of the Zila Panchayat shall be held within 30 days of the date of publication under section 33. Such meeting shall be convened by the prescribed authority and provisions of section 44 regarding meeting, as far as may be, shall apply in respect of the said meeting. (2) Unless otherwise provided in this Act the office bearers of Zila Panchayat shall hold office for five years from the date of the first meeting and no longer: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this sub-section an office bearer of Zila Panchayat shall cease to hold office forthwith on his ceasing to be -(a) a voter of the Gram Panchayat area within the district; (b) Chairman of District Co-operative Bank or District Co-operative Land Development Bank by virtue of which he became member of Zila Panchayat. (3) If before the expiry of the period prescribed in sub-section (2) the Zila Panchayat is not newly constituted, it shall dissolved on the expiry of the said period and the provisions of section 87 shall apply thereto for a period not exceeding six months within which the Zila Panchayat shall be reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Now I shall proceed to refer to the relevant rules of the Election Rules, 1994. Chapter III deals with the list of voters. Rule 7 stipulates preparation of the voters' list. Rule 8 deals with publication of voters' list. Rule 9 deals with claims and abjections. Rule 10 deals with disposal of claims and objections. It is essential o reproduce rule 10 of the Rules :- "10. Chapter III deals with the list of voters. Rule 7 stipulates preparation of the voters' list. Rule 8 deals with publication of voters' list. Rule 9 deals with claims and abjections. Rule 10 deals with disposal of claims and objections. It is essential o reproduce rule 10 of the Rules :- "10. Disposal of claims and objections -- (1) The Registration Officer shall, after holding such summary inquiry into the claims or objections as he thinks fit, record his decision in writing and shall make available on demand copy of such decision to the objector free of charge forthwith. (2) No person shall be represented by any legal practitioner in any proceeding under this rule. (3) The Registration Officer shall amend the voter's list in accordance with his decision. (4) The voters' list so amended shall subject to decision in appeal, if any, be final and a copy thereof duly signed by the Registration Officer shall be kept in his office and another copy deposited in the office of District Election Officer. (5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Registration Officer may prefer an appeal to the appellate Authority within five days of such decision. Every appeal shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Commission and presented to the appellate Authority accompanied with a copy of the decision of the Registration Officer. The appellate Authority, after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing and making such enquiry as it deems fit, shall pass suitable orders and in the event of succeeding direct the Registration Officer to amend the voters' list to give effect to its decision. The decision of the appellate authority shall be final: Provided that no amendment shall be carried out in the voters' list according I the decision of the appellate authority after the publication of notice under rule 7 and before the completion of Election." Rule 11 deals with the• inspection of issue of certified copies. Rule 12 deals with the duration of voters' list and their revision. Rule 13 deals with finalisation of voters' list. It is profitable to quote rule 13 :- "13. Rule 12 deals with the duration of voters' list and their revision. Rule 13 deals with finalisation of voters' list. It is profitable to quote rule 13 :- "13. Finalisation of voters list :-- No correction, inclusion or exclusion in any entry in the voters' list shall be made under this rule after the finalisation under rule 10." In this context, it is also necessary to refer to rule 27 which occurs in Chapter VI dealing with the conduct of Election. Rule 27 is as under :- "27. Fixation of various stages of elections :-- In accordance with the time schedule prescribed by the Commission, the District Election Officer (Panchayat) shall be notice in Form 2 or 3 as the case may be, specify – (a) the last date, time and place for making nominations which shall be the seventh day after the date of publication of the notice, or if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (b) the date, time and place for the scrutiny of nominations. Such date shall be the day next following the last date appointed for making nomination, or if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (c) the date for withdrawal of candidature which shall be the second day after the date for the scrutiny of nomination or if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (d) the date on which and the time during which the poll shall, if necessary, betaken; and (e) the date, time and place for the counting of votes." 16. From the aforesaid scheme of the Rules it is graphically clear that after claims and objections are disposed of the voters' list attains finality and no correction, inclusion or exclusion is permissible. It is enjoined under the proviso to sub-rule(2) of rule 10 that no amendment is to be carried out in the voters' list after the publication of notice under rule 27. This Court in the case of Khumano Bai (supra) while dealing with this aspect has held as follows :- "23. As a challenge has been made to the voters' list prepared under the Act and the Rules this aspect of the matter is also being dealt with in this petition. This Court in the case of Khumano Bai (supra) while dealing with this aspect has held as follows :- "23. As a challenge has been made to the voters' list prepared under the Act and the Rules this aspect of the matter is also being dealt with in this petition. The qualifications for a person who wants to get himself registered as a voter have been indicated in section 5 of the Adhiniyam. The detailed procedure for preparing voters' list is indicated in Chapter III of the Rules of 1994. The preliminary voter list is prepared under rule 8, claims and objections are invited under rule 9 and these objections are decided under rule 10. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Registration Authority can prefer an appeal under rule 10(5). Voters' list attains finality and no amendment is permissible once a notice of election has been issued under rule 27 of the Rules. This is so provided in rule 10 (5) proviso. The law attaches great importance to the voters' list once it -is finalised and this is the precise reason for laying in expressed terms that once a notice of election has been issued under rule 27 then no amendment is permissible in the list." 17. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to rule 12 to contend that the finality of the voters' list as contemplated under Rule 10 is subject to revision in accordance with sub-rule(2) of rule 12. It is apposite to reproduce Rule 12 :- "12. Duration of voters' list and their revision -- (1) Voters' list referred to in sub-rule (4) of rule 10 shall continue in force until revised in accordance with sub-rule (2). (2) Every such list shall be revised and brought up-to-date whenever a bye-election or general elections are due to take place or whenever any change in the limits of the village or a ward or of a constituency of Janpad Panchayat or Ziia Panchayat takes place; and the provisions of rule 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to such revisions." 18. On a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule nothing is noticeable to confer jurisdiction on the Registration Officer to exclude or include the name of a voter unless a Bye-election or General-election is due to take place or whenever any change in the limits of the village or a ward or constituency of a Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat takes place. It is also to be noted here that once steps for revision are taken rules 8, 9 and 10 again become applicable. Learned counsel for the respondents have laboured hard to give a wide meaning to the terms 'B ye-election' or 'General-election' . The term 'Election' has been defined under section 2(iv) to mean election of office bearers of panchayat and includes co-option of office bearers. The term 'Constituency' has been defined under rule 2(e) to mean that a constituency of Janpad Panchayat within the Block and Zila Panchayat with the District. The expression" Voters' list" has been defined under rule 2(j) of the Rules to mean that a list of the voters of the village for which a Gram Panchayat is to be established under section 10 of the Act. The words used in sub-rule (2) of rule 12 have to take colour from the expression made in the Act and the Rules. Unless a contingency occurs and the revision of the voters' list takes place there cannot be a revision to modify or delete the name of a voter. On a close scrutiny of the Rules nothing is perceivable to confer power on the Registration Officer to delete the name of the voter. Mr. Agrawal strenuously urged that if such a power is not made available to the Registration Officer the provision incorporated under section 34 (2) would be redundant. The proviso to section 34 (2) stipulates that an office bearer of Zila Panchayat shall cease to hold office forthwith on his ceasing to be a voter of the Gram Panchayat area within the district. It is contended by the learned counsel that if such a cessation is permissible then an entry in the voters' list which has been incorporated in a fraudulent manner is subject to deletion by the Registration Officer. It is contended by the learned counsel that if such a cessation is permissible then an entry in the voters' list which has been incorporated in a fraudulent manner is subject to deletion by the Registration Officer. On a perusal of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, I find there is nothing which confers the power on the Registration Officer to initiate proceedings for cancellation/deletion/modification/correction of voters list after the election is held. The contingency provided under section 34 (2) has to be read and appreciated in proper perspective and in the requisite context. I may hasten to add here that the language used in the said provision is that an office bearer of Zila Panchayat would cease to hold office if he ceases to be a voter of the Gram Panchayat Area within the district. At this juncture, I may refer to the definition of 'Gram Panchayat' in section 2(vii) which reads as under :- ''Gram Panchayat" means a gram panchayat establish under sub-section (I) of section 10. " It is relevant to refer to section 3 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 which reads as under:- "3. Notification of village. -- The Governor shall be public notification specify a village or group of villages to be a village for the purpose of this Act." 19. In this context, section 10 is relevant which I may profitably quote :- "10. Establishment of Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. -- (1) There shall be a Gram Panchayat for every village specified as a village for the purpose of this Act under section 3. (2) The Governor may by notification, divide a district into blocks. The notification shall specify the name of every such block, its headquarters and the area comprised therein. For every block there shall be a Janpad Panchayat which shall be known by the name of the block. (3) There shall be a Zila Pane hay at for every district: Provided that every municipal corporation, municipal council, town area committee, notified area committee or special area development authority established and constituted within the block and district under relevant law for the time being in force shall form a separate administrative unit for the respective areas within their jurisdiction under the relevant law." 20. Reading the aforesaid provisions harmoniously it is apparent that a Gram Panchayat is different than a Zila Panchayat. Reading the aforesaid provisions harmoniously it is apparent that a Gram Panchayat is different than a Zila Panchayat. A single village or a group of villages can be notified to be a village for the purpose of the Act and under section 10(1) a Gram Panchayat is constituted for every village which has been specified under section 3. Sub-section (2) of section 10 postulates that in every Block there shall be a Janpad Panchayat. Sub-section (3) stipulates that there shall be Zila Panchayat for every District. Thus, the import of section 34(2) of the Act is that if an office bearer of the Zila Panchayat ceases to be a voter of Gram Panchayat within the district by de-limitation or there is a change in limits of the Zila Panchayat the Gram Panchayat of which the office bearer is a. voter does not remain within the district then he has to cease to be an office bearer. In this context, I may refer to sub-section (3) of section 29 which reads as under :- "29 (3). Any person who is not a voter of Gram Panchayat area within the district and is not qualified to be a Panch of Gram Panchayat within the district shall not be co-opted under sub-section (2)." On a fair reading of this section conjointly with section 34 the only conclusion is that if a member ceases to be a voter of Gram Panchayat Area within the District he shall cease to be the office bearer of the Zila Panchayat. Thus, the apprehension expressed by Mr. Agrawal is sans foundation and does not merit acceptance. 21. In view of the foregoing analysis, I am of the considered view that the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for cancellation/ modification of the voters' list, may be on any ground whatsoever. If a particular authority lacks inherent jurisdiction, he cannot assume jurisdiction on the ground that there had been manipulation. If such a power is conferred on the Registration Officer it would lead to chaos and would defeat the scheme of the Act and frustrate the Conscience of the constitutional provision as enshrined under Article 243-O 22. As I have discussed at length with regard to the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 whether he is the original authority or the appellate Authority does not require to be dealt with. Mr. Agrawal and Mr. As I have discussed at length with regard to the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 whether he is the original authority or the appellate Authority does not require to be dealt with. Mr. Agrawal and Mr. Tiwari had referred to the notification which confers the power on the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the appellate Authority. Be that as it may, the same being academic in the present context need not be gone into. 23. Though I have dealt with the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 with regard to the cancellation/modification of the voters' list after the election, I have perused the order-sheet of the respondent No.3 filed as Annexure P-5 to find out whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice. By order dated 7.2.96 the petitioner was served with a notice to appear on 15.2.96. On a perusal of the order dated 15.2.96 it appears that the petitioner had appeared on 14.2.96 and had stated that she had received notice on 14.2.96 and she may be granted time till 26.2.96. The respondent No.3 noted in paragraph 3 of the order-sheet that some witnesses had been called and they were examined. The petitioner was granted time till 26.2.96. On 26.2.96 the petitioner filed her show-cause. On that day counsel for the petitioner prayed for taking oral evidence. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for evidence to 2.3.96. On 2.3.96 some evidence was recorded and the petitioner was examined and the matter was adjourned for orders to 4.3.96. On 4.3.96 the order was not passed and the respondent No. 3 passed an order indicating that it was necessary to record the statements of Patwari and accordingly a notice was issued to the Patwari. On 6.3.96 Patwari was present and on that day he issued summons to Patel Kotwars of certain places. The matter stood adjourned to 7.3.96. On 7.3.96 Kotwars of Jorandh, Devri Khodi and Arivant were examined. On a perusal of the order-sheet, it is found that the petitioner again appeared on 8.3.96. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 15 a stand has been taken to the following effect: "The order-sheet dated 15.2.96 is very clear that no assurance was given to them that the case will be adjourned for 26.2.96. In fact, when the petitioner failed to appear on 15.2.96 the case should have been proceeded ex-parte according to the Rule but an opportunity was given to them. In fact, when the petitioner failed to appear on 15.2.96 the case should have been proceeded ex-parte according to the Rule but an opportunity was given to them. Even on 26.2.96 the petitioner failed to appear in person, her Advocate Shri N.K. Pandey appeared and participated in the proceedings. However, on 2.3.96 the petitioner and her husband appeared and petitioner was examined as her witness. Even on the subsequent dates, they kept away from the proceedings and again appeared on 8.3.96. She was informed at Khamaria Camp. However, on that date, they again kept themselves away." Appreciating the aforesaid it becomes clear that once the matter was reserved for order the authority should not have proceeded and examine certain Patwaris and Kotwars behind her back. Such a course of action is unknown to law. It cannot be said that the evidence of the said witnesses have not influenced the respondent No.3. It is well settled in law that justice not only be done but should manifestly appear to have been done. Applying the aforesaid yard stick, I am of the considered view that the proceedings as conducted by the respondent No.3 cannot be given the stamp of approval by this Court. 24. In support of the order passed by the respondent No. 3 the learned counsel for the respondents in search of such powers of the said authority, has referred me to rules 21 to 27 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 framed under the Representation of People's Act, 1950. On a perusal of the said Rules I do not find anything to support the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents for conferring the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 to modify or rectify or delete the name of a voter from the Electoral Roll. Mr. Tankha has also referred to a decision rendered in the case of Vaidyanath v. Sitaram reported in SC and FB Election Cases (Vol. 2) 242 wherein their Lordships have held that Electoral Roll cannot be corrected after last date for making nomination and before the completion of election as section 23 (iii) takes away the power of Electoral Registration Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer. That apart, the M.P. Election Rules, 1994 is a complete Code in itself and reference to the other Rules is not necessary. That apart, the M.P. Election Rules, 1994 is a complete Code in itself and reference to the other Rules is not necessary. Be that as it may, reliance on the said Rules is also not of much assistance to the respondents. In view of the preceding analysis the writ petition deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. In the result, the impugned orders contained in Annexure P-8 and P-10 arc quashed. The petitioner shall reap the consequential benefits because of quashment of the aforesaid orders. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.