ORDER 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether competent authority (SDO) was justified in allowing the election petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether competent authority was justified in holding that petitioner was disqualified for contesting the election or in any event disqualified to get himself elected on the post of Sarpanch because he was holding yet another post of President of one co-operative society. This, in substance, is the question. It arises on following facts which were pleaded by the parties in the election petition and were relied upon for recording the impugned finding against the petitioner. . 2. There is a Gram Panchayat at village Rathana in District Mandsour. Election for the post of Sarpanch was announced by Annexure P-l issued by the returning officer. In terms of the election programme, the election programme became operative from 6.5.1999 when list of electoral was published. Parties were to submit the nomination on 10.5.1999 whereas the election was to be held on 28.1.2000. 3. Petitioner as also the respondent No. 1 contested the election. Petitioner won and respondent No. 1 lost. This led to filing of the election petition under section 122 of the Adhiniyam read with Rules applicable to filing and deciding of the election petition. The ground on which the election of the petitioner was challenged was that petitioner was not eligible and/or to say not qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch because on the date of election and even thereafter he was holding the post of President of cooperative society called Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society. The case of petitioner was that on 6.5.1999 (Annexure P-5) he had tendered his resignation which was accepted by the Society on 3.2.2000 (AnnexureP-6). It is on this basis, the petitioner contended that he was eligible to contest the election as also entitled to retain the post of Sarpanch. The competent authority, however, by impugned order, allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No.1, i.e., defeated candidate and held that petitioner was not eligible/qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch because he had incurred the disqualification contained in section 17 (1)(iii) of the Adhiniyam. It is this order which is impugned in this writ. The competent authority, however, by impugned order, allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No.1, i.e., defeated candidate and held that petitioner was not eligible/qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch because he had incurred the disqualification contained in section 17 (1)(iii) of the Adhiniyam. It is this order which is impugned in this writ. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They are served and represented. 4. Heard Shri S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the writ and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 6. Section 17 (1) of the Adhiniyam which governs the controversy reads as under: "17 (1) -- Election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. -- (1) In every Gram Panchayat there shall be a Sarpanch and an Up-Sarpanch. A person who – (i) is qualified to be elected as panch; (ii) is not a member of either House of Parliament or member of State Legislative Assembly; and (iii) is not Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Cooperative Society; shall be elected as a Sarpanch, subject to provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), by persons whose names are included in the list of voters of the Gram Panchayat area in such manner as may be prescribed." Similarly, rule 21(1) (a) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules (for short 'Rules') reads as under: "21. Grounds for declaring election to be void. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion -- (a) That on the date of his election the returned candidate who was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act...” 7. Perusal of section 17 (1) shows that it provides a qualification as also disqualification as to who can contest the election of Sarpanch and who cannot. Clause (i) says that a person who is qualified to be elected as Panch can contest the election of Sarpanch. In other words, a person must possess qualifications which are prescribed for the post of Panch in case if he wants to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Clause (i) says that a person who is qualified to be elected as Panch can contest the election of Sarpanch. In other words, a person must possess qualifications which are prescribed for the post of Panch in case if he wants to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Clause (ii) and (iii) are in negative words. They provide for disqualification. Clause (ii) provides that if a person is a member of House of Parliament or State Assembly then he has no right to contest the election of Sarpanch. Likewise, clause (iii) provides that if a person is a Chairman or Vice Chairman of cooperative society then he shall not be elected as Sarpanch. Rule 21 (1) (a) then empowers the specified officer to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void, if any of the aforesaid grounds exists. 8. What is therefore required to be seen in such case is, whether a returned candidate was occupying any of the post such as Member of Parliament, State Legislative Assembly, or Chairman, or Vice-Chairman of Co-operative Society at the time of contesting election. Indeed, the use of the words 'shall be elected' clearly suggest that a person has no right to contest the election if he is holding any of the aforementioned four posts at the time of submission of his nomination paper. In any event, the returning officer will have no authority to declare such person elected if it is found at the time of declaration that such person has incurred disqualification enumerated in the clauses 17 (1)(i), (ii) and/or (iii). 9. Coming to the undisputed facts of this case, it is on record that on the date of submission of nomination papers, i.e., on 6.5.1999 till 3.2.2000, the petitioner was holding the post of Chairman of Primary Cooperative Society. - Indeed, even according to petitioner, his resignation was accepted on 3.2.2000 whereas the election was held on 28.1.2000, i.e., much prior to acceptance of resignation by the society. In such circumstances, it was a clear case where one can conclude that petitioner was having disqualification contained in clause 17 (1) (iii) of Adhiniyam on the date he was declared elected for the post of Sarpanch and such disqualification continued till 3.2.2000. 10. In such circumstances, it was a clear case where one can conclude that petitioner was having disqualification contained in clause 17 (1) (iii) of Adhiniyam on the date he was declared elected for the post of Sarpanch and such disqualification continued till 3.2.2000. 10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that petitioner had tendered resignation on 6.5.1999 (Annexure P-5) and hence, he had a right to contest the election of Sarpanch. It was contended that once the resignation was tendered, the petitioner had ceased to be Chairman of society from 6.5.1999 itself. I find no merit in the submission. In the first place, tendering of resignation on 6.5.1999 by itself did not tantamount to its acceptance by the authority concerned. Secondly, even the petitioner had in his letter of resignation requested for its acceptance. Thirdly, the petitioner continued to act and hold the office of Chairman till 3.2.2000, i.e., the date on which the society accepted the resignation; and lastly, in the absence of any rule as to how and in what manner the resignation had to be accepted, the same would come into effect only on its acceptance by the authority concerned. It is on account of these reasoning. I am of the opinion that resignation tendered by the petitioner on 6.5.1999 was of no consequence till it was accepted by the authority on 3.2.2000 and hence, the petitioner had incurred the disqualification as contemplated under section 17 (l)(iii) of Adhiniyam read with rule 21 (l)(a) for contesting the election of Sarpanch. In other words, in order to be eligible for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch, the petitioner should have got his resignation accepted by the competent authorities on or before the date of submission of his nomination paper and not after he was elected (see AIR 1987 SC 1293 ). 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any case to interfere in the impugned order of specified officer who allowed the election petition and set aside the election of petitioner on the post of Sarpanch. 12. Petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.