ORAL JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1.00. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondent authorities to decide the application made by the petitioner on 16/12/2011 and to direct the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the election of Saviyana Gram Panchayat, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha. It is also further prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondent No.3 to cancel the nomination papers of the respondent No.4 and also to quash and set aside the election held on 29/12/20011 of Saviyana Gram Panchayat, Taluka Deesa. 2.00. That the petitioner is resident of village Saviyana. That the respondent No.4 filled in nomination form for the post of Sarpanch of Village Saviyana, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha, which was to be held on 30/31-12-2011. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the day on whcih the respondent No.4 filled in nomination form for the post of Sarpanch on 15/12/2011, there was already an order passed against him by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Gujarat dated 19/11/2011 under the provisions of the Saurashtra Tree Cutting Act, 1951 and he was required to pay the penalty equal to the amount of trees cut which was not paid by the respondent No.4 at the time of filling nomination form and therefore, as such the respondent No.4 was in arrears and/or in default of the Government dues and therefore, disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that the said fact was not disclosed by the respondent No.4 at the time when he filled in nomination form. Therefore, he filed objection within a period of limitation / within stipulated time i.e. on 16/12/2011 which was required to be decided by the Returning Officer as per Rule 15 of the Gujarat Panchayats Elections Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short), however, the same was not decided. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the objections, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination form of the respondent No.4 and permitted him to contest the election. That thereafter the respondent No.4 has been declared elected. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.00. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the objections, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination form of the respondent No.4 and permitted him to contest the election. That thereafter the respondent No.4 has been declared elected. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.00. Mr.Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the Returning Officer was required to decide the objections against the nomination form within a period of 24 hours as required under Rule 15 of the Rules. 3.01. Mr.Nangesh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such as per Rule 11 of the Rules, the respondent No.4 can be said to be in arrears and/or in default of the Government dues. It is submitted that the day on which the respondent No.4 filled in the nomination form, there was already an order passed under the provisions of the Saurashtra Trees Cutting Act and the amount due and payable under the order passed under the Saurashtra Trees Cutting Act was not paid by the respondent No.4 and therefore, he can be said to be in arrears and/or in default to the government and therefore, as such he was disqualified. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition. 4.00. The representative of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 both have remained present at the time of the present petition. It is submitted that as such the petitioner was orally informed on the objections raised by him by communication dated 16/12/2011 and was informed that as No Due Certificate was issued by the concerned authority, nomination form of the respondent No.4 has been accepted. It was further submitted that as such there was no suppression on the part of the respondent No.4, as alleged. It is further submitted that as such even considering section 30(1)(i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (“the Act” for short) and considering the fact that after the order dated 19/11/2011, respondent No.4 was not disqualified as there was no special notice for recovery. It is submitted that within a period of three months from the order dated 19/11/2011, the respondent No.4 was required to deposit the entire amount due and payable under the order dated 19/11/2011. It is submitted that within a period of three months from the order dated 19/11/2011, the respondent No.4 was required to deposit the entire amount due and payable under the order dated 19/11/2011. It is submitted that therefore, even on merits also the respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in default and/or in arrears and consequently disqualified. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present petition election of the respondent No.4 as a Sarpanch of Saviyana Gram Panchayat has been challenged mainly on two grounds namely (1) that the objections raised before the Returning Officer / Election Officer on 16/12/2011 by the petitioner against the nomination form of the respondent No.4 was not decided as required within 24 hours as per rule 15 of the Rules and therefore, the election has been vitiated and (2) in view of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Gujarat dated 19/11/2011 under the provisions of the Saurashtra Tree Cutting Act, 1951, the respondent No.4 was required to pay fine equal to amount of trees cut which was not paid by the respondent No.4 at the time of filling the nomination form and/or even at the time of election and therefore, the respondent No.4 was disqualified considering section 30(1)(i) of the Act. 5.02. Now, so far as the second ground on which the election is challenged i.e. in view of the order passed by Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Gujarat dated 19/11/2011 under the provisions of the Saurashtra Tree Cutting Act, 1951, the respondent No.4 was liable to pay amount of trees cut and which was not paid by the respondent No.4 at the time of nomination form and even at the time of election and therefore, the respondent No.4 can be said to be disqualified considering section 30(1)(i) of the Act is concerned, the same has no substance. It is required to be noted that as such the respondent No.4 did deposit the entire amount due and payable under the order dated 19/11/2011 within a period of three months from the date of such order. It is required to be noted that as such the respondent No.4 did deposit the entire amount due and payable under the order dated 19/11/2011 within a period of three months from the date of such order. It is also required to be noted that at the relevant time the concerned authority issued No Due Certificate and thereafter the nomination form of the respondent No.4 was accepted. Considering Section 30(1)(i) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act if after serving special notice for recovery of the amount, the concerned person does not make payment within a period of three months only thereafter and in that case only it can be said that such person is in arrears and/or in default in making the payment to the Panchayat and can be said to be disqualified. In the present case, nothing is on record to show that such a special notice for recovery of the amount pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Gujarat dated 19/11/2011 under the provisions of the Saurashtra Tree Cutting Act, 1951 was served upon the respondent No.4 and thereafter within a period of three months, he did not make the payment of the amount due and payable under the order dated 19/11/2011. Section 30(1) (i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 reads as under:- “Section 30 : No member shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) xxx xxx xxx (h) xxx xxx xxx (i) fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the panchayat or any panchayat subordinate thereto or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with Chapter X of this Act, within three months after a special notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been served upon him.” Considering the aforesaid provision, it cannot be said that the respondent No.4 was disqualified on the ground that he was in arrears and/or in default in making the payment under the order dated 19/11/2011. Under the circumstances as such the nomination form of the respondent No.3 was rightly accepted and was rightly permitted to contest the election. Under the circumstances as such the nomination form of the respondent No.3 was rightly accepted and was rightly permitted to contest the election. No illegality has been committed by the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination form of the respondent No.4. 5.03. Now, so far as the first ground on which the election is sought to be canceled, namely not deciding the objections within a period of 24 hours as per Rule 15 of the Rules, is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as per the Returning Officer, the petitioner was orally informed and communicated the decision on the objections raised by him. It is true that as such the Returning Officer / Election Officer was bound to pass a specific order on the objection raised before him. However, merely because such objection was not decided cannot be a ground to set aside the entire election. Only in a case where on merits it is found that the nomination form was wrongly accepted and it is found that the objection against the nomination form was not decided, in that case only the election can be set aside. 5.04. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as observed hereinabove, the nomination form of the respondent No.4 was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer / Election Officer. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground, the election of the respondent No.4 as a Sarpanch is not required to be set aside. 6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.