ORDER 1. Respondent No.1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sagouni on 19.1.2005. An election petition was preferred by the present petitioner on the ground that the last child of respondent No.1 was born on 27.8.2001 and the respondent No.1 was thus, disqualified from contesting the election by virtue of clause (m) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of M.P. Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Secondly, it is contended that respondent No.1 had in all 9 children whereas only 5 daughters were disclosed in the affidavit containing declaration under Rule 31(1) of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam; 1995. On account of false declaration, it is contended that nomination papers of the petitioner were liable to be rejected. They were wrongly accepted and election of respondent No.1 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 2. In the return, respondent No.1 denied the allegation about the birth of last child on 27.8.2001. According to her, last child was born on 5th of December,2000, however, with regard to the allegation about the contents of declaration it was submitted in the written statement that the respondent No.1 is an illiterate lady. The declaration was filled up by the third person who was informed by her about having 5 daughters and 4 sons. She pleaded that person filling up the declaration due to inadvertence, and/or confusion entered information merely about five daughters which could not be verified by the respondent No.1 on account of her illiteracy. 3. Learned Specified Officer after recording evidence found that the election petitioner has failed to prove that the last child to the respondent No.1 was born on 27.8.2001. On the contrary, birth of the last child in the year 2000 is held to be duly proved. As regards false declaration, learned specified officer observed that the respondent No.1 being an illiterate lady cannot be blamed for false affidavit in the election petition, more so, because no proceedings were initiated against her about the allegation of false affidavit and no disqualification was earned by her in the absence of any such proceedings and decision therein. Ultimately, the specified officer found that the grounds for quashing the election have not been established and rejected the election petition vide impugned order dated 15.9.2006 ontained in Annexure P-l. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition has been preferred wherein Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri M.P.. Ultimately, the specified officer found that the grounds for quashing the election have not been established and rejected the election petition vide impugned order dated 15.9.2006 ontained in Annexure P-l. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition has been preferred wherein Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri M.P.. Shukla and Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate for respective respondents advanced their arguments at length which have been considered in the light of relevant legal provisions as well as material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Umesh Shrivastava, contended that it has been duly established that the respondent No.1 gave birth to her last child on 27.8.2001 as revealed in birth certificate marked as Annexure P-l. Birth certificate contained in Annexure P-2 is issued by Chourasiya Hospital and Research Centre (Chourasiya Nursing Home) situated at Rewa. Respondent No.1 is a poor illiterate lady belonging to Scheduled Caste. She is resident of village Sagouni. In the birth certificate her name is mentioned as Phoolmati whereas in Annexure P-2 her surname has been mentioned as Prajapati. Doctor who issued this alleged certificate Annexure P-2 has not been examined. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has submitted birth certificate of her (last) 9th child which reveals that the birth did take place on 5.12.2000 in villae Sagouni. These and various such other factors were considered by the learned Specific Officer while giving findings that Annexure P-2 is not proved beyond doubt. Contrary to it, the certificate which reveals the date of birth on 5.12.2000 has been believed by the learned Specified Officer. This Court while dealing with the present writ petition does not act as appellate authority and in the absence of any perversity it is not expected to make reappraisal of the evidence as an appellate Court. This being so, no fault is found in the finding of the specified officer that there was no violation of clause (m) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. 5. As regards submission of false affidavit along with nomination papers, it is submitted by respondent No.1 that she had 9 children (five daughters and four sons). Her specific statement is that declaration was prepared and filled up by third person who was informed by her about having five daughters and four sons (in all 9 children). 5. As regards submission of false affidavit along with nomination papers, it is submitted by respondent No.1 that she had 9 children (five daughters and four sons). Her specific statement is that declaration was prepared and filled up by third person who was informed by her about having five daughters and four sons (in all 9 children). Her specific stand is that the said third person while tilling up the form due to inadvertence or confusion filled up information about merely five children and she being illiterate lady could not verify the contents of the affidavit. Petitioner did not choose to apply for prosecution of respondent No.1 on the ground of false affidavit. Rule 31A(1) of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 was inserted w.e.f. 20th of September, 2004, whereunder every candidate in the election is required to submit declaration/affidavit which shall include information about his educational qualification, criminal cases pending/decided, his/her assets and liabilities and that of his/her spouse and dependents, his/her number of living children and information about whether he/she is an encroacher on Government land. 6. Said provision is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: "31 A. Information of criminal record, properties, liabilities and educational qualifications, etc. of candidates. -- (1) Every candidate for the post of Panch shall submit a declaration in a form as prescribed by the State Election Commission along with nomination paper which shall include information about his educational qualification, criminal cases pending/decided, his/her assets and liabilities and that of his/ her spouse and dependents, his/her number of living children and information about whether he/she is an encroacher on Government land. (2) Every candidate for the post of Sarpanch, member of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat shall submit an affidavit, in a form as prescribed by the State Election Commission along with nomination paper which shall include information about his educational qualification criminal cases pending/decided, his/her assets and liabilities and that of his/her spouse and dependents, his/her number of living children and information about whether he/she is an encroacher on Government land. The affidavit shall be sworn before competent Notary, Magistrate or Oath Commissioner. (3) A copy of affidavit/declaration of candidates for the post of Panch, Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat shall be exhibited on the notice board in the office of the Returning Officer. Its copy shall be made available to any citizen on demand on payment of prescribed fee." 7. (3) A copy of affidavit/declaration of candidates for the post of Panch, Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat shall be exhibited on the notice board in the office of the Returning Officer. Its copy shall be made available to any citizen on demand on payment of prescribed fee." 7. Clause (c)(2) of Rule 35 makes the nomination papers liable to be rejected on the ground that the provisions including that of 31 A, have not been complied with. Thus, in the case of false affidavit, the nomination paper's of the respondent No.1 could have been legally rejected. However, it is fairly conceded that no such objection was raised at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. Once the nomination papers have been accepted, thugh improperly, it can be made a ground in the election petition only after if the result of election is proved to have been materially affected thereby. 8. Rule 21 of M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 provides a ground for declaring election to be void. Sub-rule of the same 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; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election insofar as it concerns returned candidate has been materially affected -- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by a corrupt practice having been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by a person acting with the consent of the candidate or his agent; or (iii) by the improper acceptance, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the specified officer shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the prescribed authority a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied - (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the instructions and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election; and (c) that in all other respect the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then he may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." 9. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it may be seen that improper rejection of the nomination papers has been made ground for declaring the election to be void. However, improper acceptance of nomination papers would be a ground only if the result is shown to have been materially affected. In the instant case, even if the respondent No.1 had disclosed about 9 living children she would not have earned any disqualification. This being so, her result cannot be said to have been materially affected on account of acceptance of nomination papers. If the information suppressed while submitting the declaration is of the nature whereby the candidate would have earned disqualification, such suppression can be said to have materially affected the result of the election. Since in the present case it has already been found that merely the factum of having nine children would not have caused any disqualification to respondent No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the result of the election is not materially affected and the improper acceptance by itself of her nomination papers due to incomplete information in the declaration did not provide a ground to set aside the election. Thus, no ground for quashing election is made out. 10. In the result, no infirmity is found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.