JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J (DBSAW No.1662/2018) : 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed as having become infructuous. 2. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant, inviting attention of the Court towards prayer clause in the writ petition contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant had not been rendered infructuous inasmuch as there were many prayers and the same would survive qua these prayers. It would not be out of place to reproduce the prayer clause of the appellant’s writ petition, which reads thus :- “(i) That the order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent no.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the objection of the petitioner for rejecting the nomination form may kindly be allowed. (iii) That the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of respondent no.4 (Annexure-9) may kindly be rejected and the election of respondent no.4 may kindly be declared void and illegal and may be quashed and thereafter the respondents may kindly be directed to take necessary consequential steps. (iv) Any other relief/relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. (v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Briefly narrating the facts of the case, Mr. Rajvanshi stated that while exercising the powers under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide its order dated 29.08.2017 debarred respondent No.4 - Babu Lal Choudhary from contesting the election for the next five years, as he had issued illegal ‘pattas’ in violation of the rules. 4. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.4 – Babu Lal Choudhary filed the nomination paper for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch, which was objected to by the petitioner. However, petitioner’s objection was rejected by the returning officer vide its order dated 13.09.2017, in light of the order of the State Government dated 04.09.2017, vide which the debarment order of the respondent No.4 had been stayed. 5. However, petitioner’s objection was rejected by the returning officer vide its order dated 13.09.2017, in light of the order of the State Government dated 04.09.2017, vide which the debarment order of the respondent No.4 had been stayed. 5. Coming to know that against the order aforesaid passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the respondent No.4 - Babu Lal Choudhary preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.1 and vide an order dated 04.09.2017, effect and operation of the above referred order of the Divisional Commissioner had been stayed, the appellant preferred the writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14190/2017) challenging the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the State Government, staying the effect and operation of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, vide which the respondent No.4 had been debarred for a period of five years to contest the election. 6. Learned counsel further stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.4 moved an application for withdrawal of his revision petition and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn. 7. When the writ petition came up for consideration before learned Single Judge, and the factum of withdrawal of the revision petition by the respondent No.4 was brought to his notice, learned Single Judge was of the view that since the revision petition itself has been withdrawn, the petitioner’s grievance against the order dated 04.09.2017 does not survive and the writ petition has thus become infructuous. 8. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge, Mr. Rajvanshi contended that the appellant had also made a prayer that the rejection of petitioner’s objection by the returning officer was incorrect, whereas the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.4 was illegal and irregular. Learned counsel submitted that these questions were required to be gone into by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, as he had made specific prayer to this effect. According to learned counsel for the appellant, as learned Single Judge has refused to adjudicate or pronounce upon other prayers made in the writ petition, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had placed before the Court the half-cooked story. 9. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had placed before the Court the half-cooked story. While admitting the fact that the said revision petition came to be withdrawn by the respondent No.4, he highlighted that the order in this regard came to be passed on 19.07.2018 and much before that, his client had filed a writ petition before this Court, being SB Civil Writ Petition No.4256/2018 and an interim order was granted by this Court on 04.05.2018, staying the effect and operation of the order dated 29.08.2017, passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 10. Explaining the position of his client (respondent No.4), Mr. Rajesh Joshi submitted that he subsequently realized that his revision petition before the State Government against the order of the Divisional Commissioner was incompetent, for which an application for withdrawal of the revision petition was filed on 06.03.2018. 11. Mr. Joshi further submitted that respondent No.4 – Babu Lal Choudhary filed the aforesaid writ petition No.4256/2018, disclosing the factum of pendency of the revision petition and that on 19.07.2018, on the date of withdrawal of the revision petition, the effect and operation of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, was otherwise stayed by virtue of the interim order dated 4.5.2018 passed by this Court. The said interim order passed by this Court on 04.05.2018 is still in currency and as a result thereof even today debarment order of respondent No.4 is in abeyance, asserted Mr. Joshi. He argued that such being the position, it cannot be said that acceptance of nomination of respondent No.4 was wrongful or irregular in any manner. 12. Mr. Joshi further contended that without admitting, even if it is assumed that the nomination of respondent No.4 was wrongly accepted, it was required of the appellant to have filed an election petition. He emphasized that in view of the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Constitutional embargo contained in Article 243-O, no challenge to election of Sarpanch or member of Panchayat can be made, except by way of an election petition provided under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and the relevant Election rules. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. An appraisal of the factual matrix of the case leaves no room for ambiguity that on the date of acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.4, the effect and operation of the order dated 29.08.2017, vide which petitioner had been debarred, was in abeyance, as such the returning officer was absolutely justified in accepting the nomination paper of the respondent No.4 and rejecting the appellant’s objection in this regard. It is also to be noticed that though an application to withdraw the revision petition had been filed by the respondent No.4 on 06.03.2018, but the revision petition came to be withdrawn on 19.07.2018, and by that time an interim order had already been passed by this Court on 04.05.2018 in a writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 (SBCWP No.4256/2018). This being the factual position, it is unequivocal that effect and operation of the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29.08.2017 was rather in abeyance till today. 15. Hence, the argument of the appellant that consequent to the withdrawal of the revision petition, the interim order passed by the State Government on 04.09.2017 has also come to an end, for which, the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.4 becomes void, is untenable. After 04.09.2017, not even for a single moment, the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29.08.2017 has come into operation. Firstly, it had been stayed by the State Government and thereafter the same has been stayed by this Court on 4.5.2018. 16. It is a different matter altogether that in the event of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 or vacation of the interim order dated 4.5.2018, the order of the Divisional Commissioner could come into force, but till then, acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.4 cannot be questioned. 17. Simply because the revision petition filed by the respondent No.4 had been withdrawn, it cannot be inferred that the acceptance of his nomination paper by the returning officer has been rendered bad in the eye of law. The returning officer had accepted the nomination paper of the respondent No.4 keeping in view the fact that debarment order dated 29.08.2017 had been stayed. The decision of the returning officer has to be adjudged on the basis of facts obtaining on the date, when it was passed. The returning officer had accepted the nomination paper of the respondent No.4 keeping in view the fact that debarment order dated 29.08.2017 had been stayed. The decision of the returning officer has to be adjudged on the basis of facts obtaining on the date, when it was passed. 18. It cannot be said that on the date of acceptance of nomination paper, the returning officer was not justified in accepting the same. 19. Be that as it may. We are of the view that till the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4, being SB Civil Writ Petition No.4256/2018 is pending, the acceptance of nomination paper of the respondent No.4 cannot be held to be improper or illegal. That being the position, learned Single Judge has committed no error of law in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition as infructuous. 20. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 21. Needless to say that any observation made by us, in the order instant shall have no bearing on the ultimate adjudication of SB Civil Writ Petition No.4256/2018 filed by respondent No.4 - Babu Lal Choudhary. The result of the said writ petition will have its bearing on the legality and correctness of the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No.4 – Babu Lal Choudhary or his continuance in the Office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhalop District Pali. (DBSAW No.1860/2018) : 22. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the order dated 20.08.2018, vide which his application seeking impleadment has been rejected by learned Single Judge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts noticed by us, in DB Special Appeal (W) No.1662/2018, we feel that the appellant is entitled to intervene in the matter, which proposition has also not been seriously disputed by Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 – the writ petitioner. 23. Thus, we permit the appellant to participate in the proceedings as an intervener. 24. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.