P.B. Majmudar, J.—By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt. 15.07.1996 (Annex.6) by which the Chief Executive Officer, Churu has held that the petitioner is disqualified from contesting the election of Sarpanch of the village as he had given birth to a third child on 02.03.1996. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi submitted that as a matter of fact third child of the petitioner was born before the cut off date and for this purpose, he has referred to the date of birth certificate showing that the child was born on 15.11.1995 i.e. before the cut off date which is 27.11.1995. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer concerned has not taken into account the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and passed the impugned order in a very cryptic manner. The learned counsel also submitted that before passing the impugned order the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of enquiry report, therefore, the petitioner has not filed any reply to the same. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Bhati submitted that since the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was not convincing, the authority while passing the impugned order has not committed any error and the order impugned, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to the respondents, the petitioner was declared disqualified as he was having his third child born after the cut-off date as per Section 19 of the Act, yet he contested the election and was ultimately elected as Sarpanch and now of course the term of the same is over, therefore, the only question which requires consideration is whether the decision is rightly taken holding the petitioner to have incurred disqualification under the Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Without going into the details of the case, suffice it to observe that while passing the impugned order, the officer has not given any cogent reasons nor considered the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner in correct perspective and the order impugned is very cryptic and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Without going into the details of the case, suffice it to observe that while passing the impugned order, the officer has not given any cogent reasons nor considered the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner in correct perspective and the order impugned is very cryptic and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The officer has not even given any finding whether the evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of birth certificate, horoscopes and other medical evidence is reliable or not. Apart from this, the officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. 5. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Section 19 provides for disqualification as under: “Qualification for election as a Panch or a member.—Every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch or as the case may be, a member of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such person:— (i) has more than two childern: Provided that:— (iv) for the purpose of clause (1), a person having more than two children shall not be deemed to be disqualified for so long as the number of children he has on the date of commencement of this Act does not increase.” 6. Section 39 deals with cessation of membership and provides as under: “Cessation of Membership.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 40, a member of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall not be eligible to continue to be such member if he:- (a) is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Sec. 19; or (b) has absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned without giving information in writing to such Panchayati Raj Institution; or (c) is removed from the Membership; or (d) resigns from the Membership; or (e) dies; or (f) fails to make the prescribed oath or affirmation of the office of the membership within three months from the date of election or appointment. (2) Whenever it is made to appear to the competent authority that a member has become ineligible to continue to be a member for any of the reasons specified in sub-sec.(1) the competent authority may, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, declare him to have become ineligible and thereupon he shall vacate his office as such member: Provided that no such opportunity shall be given if such member has, under Sec. 40, been determined by the Judge to be or to have become disqualified under Sec. 19: Provided further that until a declaration under this sub-section is made, he shall continue to hold his office. 7. It would also be useful to refer to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1996 which provides as under: Procedure for removal in case of disqualification.—(1) Whenever it is represented to, or otherwise brought to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer in case of Panch/Sarpanch and to the State Government in case of Pradhan/Up-Pradhan, Pramukh/Up-Pramukh or member of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who has been declared to be duly elected as such or who has been appointed as such under any provision of the Act, was not qualified, or was disqualified, for such election or appointment at the time when he was so elected or appointed or has thereafter become disqualified for continuing as such member, the competent authority shall draw up clearly and precisely the alleged disqualification or disqualifications forming the subject of the representation made to it, or otherwise brought to its notice, and shall forthwith issue a notice to such member, which shall:- (i) Set out the gist of the allegations against him, (ii) Fix a date, not less than fifteen days after the date of issue of the notice, on which the inquiry shall be made, (iii) Require him to show cause, for personal appearance or in writing, why his seat should not be declared by the State Government to be or to have become vacant on the ground of his having been not qualified or disqualified, as alleged. (iv) Call upon him to produce, in denial of the allegation, such documentary or other evidence as may be in the possession, and (v) Invite him to appear personally, if he so desires, on the date fixed by the notice, and a copy of the notice shall be sent also to the informant, if any. (iv) Call upon him to produce, in denial of the allegation, such documentary or other evidence as may be in the possession, and (v) Invite him to appear personally, if he so desires, on the date fixed by the notice, and a copy of the notice shall be sent also to the informant, if any. (2) On the date fixed by the notice, the Chief Executive Officer or the State Government as the case may be shall hear the informant, if any, as well as the member if he appears before him and requests for a personal hearing, shall consider the document and other evidence produced by them in proof or disproof of the allegation or allegations, shall make such further inquiry as he may think necessary, shall record a finding as to the alleged disqualification or disqualifications and shall either order the proceedings to be dropped or declare the seat of such member to have become vacant or make such other order as may be proper in the circumstances of the case under Sec.39 of the Act.” 8. In my view when a procedure is already prescribed to holding an enquiry such procedure was required to be followed by the authority. It is pointed out that such procedure has not been followed in the present case and since the impugned order is very cryptic one and no details are given nor any evidence is discussed nor the finding of the enquiry officer is discussed in the order, the matter is required to be sent back to the concerned officer. The concerned officer may pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and at the time of passing the order, documentary evidence on record may also be taken into account. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of passing the order, the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner, and therefore, no reply could be filed by the petitioner. However, now since the said report is made available to the petitioner, he is granted liberty to file reply before the concerned officer within a period of one month from today and the concerned officer shall decide the matter afresh within a period of three months thereafter as he may deem fit and in accordance with law. However, now since the said report is made available to the petitioner, he is granted liberty to file reply before the concerned officer within a period of one month from today and the concerned officer shall decide the matter afresh within a period of three months thereafter as he may deem fit and in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the matter is sent back to the concerned officer as the concerned officer while passing the impugned order has not discussed the evidence no has followed the procedure as prescribed in law and on this limited point, the matter is sent back for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. It is for the concerned officer to pass a fresh order as stated above as he deems fit and as per law. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dt. 15.07.1996 (Annex.6) passed by Chief Executive Officer, Churu is quashed and set aside. The matter is sent back to the concerned officer for taking decision afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. * * * * *