JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Heard Mr. Anjan Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangare, leaned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner was elected as a member of Waigaon Gram Panchayat, Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha, which has total 9 Members in the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter a meeting was called for election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The meeting was convened on 2-8-2000 at 2.00 p.m. in accordance with Election Rules of 1964. The petitioner, therefore, filed her nomination under Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as "Election Rules of 1964") for contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch. Rule 11 of the said Rules provides as under :- "11. Quorum.---(1) The quorum necessary for the meeting called for the election of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall be one-half of the total number of members of the Panchayat. Explanation.---If the number of members of the Panchayat is odd, in calculating half the number for the purpose of the quorum, fraction of a member shall be counted as one, e.g. if the number of members is seven, the quorum shall be four and if the number is nine, the quorum shall be five and so on. (2) If within thirty minutes from the time fixed for the meeting, there be no quorum, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting. (3) If, at any time during the meeting, it is brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer that the number of members present fall short of the required quorum, the Presiding Officer, after waiting for a period of not less than fifteen. minutes and not more than half an hour, shall adjourn the meeting. (4) The meeting adjourned under sub-rule (2) or (3) of Rule 11 shall be held again on the next day at the same place and hour. minutes and not more than half an hour, shall adjourn the meeting. (4) The meeting adjourned under sub-rule (2) or (3) of Rule 11 shall be held again on the next day at the same place and hour. A notice of such adjournment shall be fixed on the notice board at the office of the panchayat and the election shall be held at such adjourned meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be quorum present or not." Rule 9 of the said rules provide for scrutiny of nominations and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 specifically provides that: After the commencement of the meeting convened under sub-section (1) of section 33, the Presiding Officer shall scrutinise all nomination papers delivered to him under Rule 6, decide any objection which may be made to any nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion reject any nomination if it does not satisfy Rule 6, 7 or 8. 3. The quorum necessary for commencement of the meeting called for the election of the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch is one-half of the total number of members of the Panchayat. So in case of Waigaon Gram Panchayat which has total number of 9 members it will be 5, as prescribed under Rule 11. It is not disputed that in the meeting convened for election of Sarpanch at 2.00 p.m. on 2-8-2000 only 4 members were present. Therefore, for want of quorum, the said meeting could not have commenced to transact any business. In spite of this, the Presiding Officer proceeded with the scrutiny of the nominations as one of the members viz. Ramesh Ukhadaji Ghumade took an objection to the nomination filed by the petitioner and the Presiding Officer upheld the objection and rejected the nomination of the petitioner, which is impugned in this petition. 4. In spite of this, the Presiding Officer proceeded with the scrutiny of the nominations as one of the members viz. Ramesh Ukhadaji Ghumade took an objection to the nomination filed by the petitioner and the Presiding Officer upheld the objection and rejected the nomination of the petitioner, which is impugned in this petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the scrutiny of nomination in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 can only take place after commencement of the meeting convened under sub-section (1) of section 33 and for the purpose of commencement of the meeting, there should be necessary quorum as prescribed under Rule 11; and as there was no quorum for the meeting, the Presiding Officer, ought not to have commenced the scrutiny of the nominations and as such, the act of rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner by the Presiding Officer, is not in accordance with the rules and, therefore, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The learned Asstt. Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent No. 3, does not dispute the fact situation but submits that the petitioner has an alternative and more efficacious remedy by way of filing Election Petition challenging the decision of the Presiding Officer and, therefore, interference of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not called and the petition may be dismissed. 6. In our opinion, the Presiding Officer committed an error in dealing with the objection filed by the member challenging the nomination filed by the petitioner for contesting the post of Sarpanch as there was no requisite quorum to commence with the meeting and ought to have adjourned the meeting without transacting any business in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned decision will have to be held invalid. This is a fit case where Court can invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the Presiding Officer failed to proceed in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Election Rules of 1964. 7. This is a fit case where Court can invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the Presiding Officer failed to proceed in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Election Rules of 1964. 7. We, therefore, quash and set aside the decision of the Presiding Officer, in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner, which is contrary to Rule 9 of the Election Rules of 1964; and direct the respondent/State to initiate the process of conducting fresh elections to the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat, Waigaon, Tah. Samudrapur, District Wardha. 8. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----