ORDER : 1. In all the above mentioned writ petitions, parties are the same and all arises out of the same proceeding. 2. Respondent No.1-Mahendra Kumar of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8282/2025 filed Election Petition No.15/2023 corresponding to 58/2021 challenging election of petitioner-Narayan Jhanwar as Chairman of Municipal Council, Nokha. Respondent No.1-Sriniwas Jhanwar of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8284/2025 filed Election Petition No.18/2023 corresponding to 61/2021 challenging election of petitioner-Narayan Jhanwar as Chairman of Municipal Council, Nokha. 3. By the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed in both the aforesaid election petitions, the election of the petitioner was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Nokha, District Bikaner. 4. Since, interim order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.15/2023 arising out of the same election petition is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19846/2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition against the interlocutory order is infructuous as election petition has itself been decided. 5. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19856/2024, order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.18/2023 arising out of the same election petition is under challenge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is infructuous now as the election petition itself has finally been disposed of. 6. Hence, the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.19846/2024 and 19856/2024 stand disposed of as having become infructuous. 7. In Election Petition No.15/2023 corresponding to 58/2021, respondent No.1-Mahendra Kumar asserted that in the first list, his candidature was found valid, however in the subsequent list, his candidature was rejected by respondent No.2, the Returning Officer of the election. 8. Contention of respondent No.1 was that once the eligibility was accepted, the Returning Officer was functus officio and he could not have issued subsequent list containing rejection of the name of respondent No.1-Mahendra Kumar. 9. From Exhibit-9 dated 03.02.2021, it is evident that in the list name of respondent No.1-Mahendra Kumar was also there, whereas in the subsequent list issued on the same day vide Exhibit No.10 name of Mahendra Kumar was missing. 10. At this juncture, contention of the petitioner is that the list published on the notice board would be only valid list; the so-called first list was never published, rather on the same day, the second list was published on the notice board. 11. Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 reads as follows :- “ 83. 10. At this juncture, contention of the petitioner is that the list published on the notice board would be only valid list; the so-called first list was never published, rather on the same day, the second list was published on the notice board. 11. Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 reads as follows :- “ 83. Publication of the list of nomination candidates-- The returning officer shall cause to be published a list containing the names of the validly nominated candidates in the form prescribed in Schedule-III by affixing it on the notice board of the municipality.” 12. It is not denied that the first list was not published though both the lists were sent to Election Commission. 13. Contention of the petitioner is that it is duty of the Returning Officer to send to the Election Commission each and every paper. Mere transmission would not validate the first list unless it was published on the notice board as per the rule aforesaid. 14. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Tejaram Gahlot Vs. Pukhraj Kalani & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Raj 138 . Para 20 whereof is being reproduced below :- “20. As I have held that the Returning Officer had power to correct the accidental mistake and recall the order of rejection of nomination paper such an order did not exist and no case under Section 100(1)(c) is made out. Because the acceptance of the nomination paper was proper no case under Section 100(1)(d)(i) is made out both in law and by pleadings.” 15. The judgment in Natwar Lal Vs. Bhartendra Singh & Anr. , decided on 23 rd April, 1953 (relied upon by the respondent herein) was also taken note of. 16. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8284/2025, respondent No.1-Sriniwas Jhanwar lost the election as the petitioner received more votes and was declared elected. Respondent No.1-Sriniwas Jhanwar challenged election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had filed two nomination papers, first as independent candidate and second as candidate for a political party. 17. As per Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules 1994, if a candidate is not set up by a recognized political party, his nomination for election must be subscribed by five proposers being electors of the same ward. 17. As per Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules 1994, if a candidate is not set up by a recognized political party, his nomination for election must be subscribed by five proposers being electors of the same ward. Since, no proposal from the ward electors was there with the petitioner, petitioner withdrew the said nomination and proceeded with another nomination, but no letter of the President of the recognized political party in support of nomination of the petitioner for the post of Chairman was there. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one such letter was there issued in the year 2019, but election of the municipality was not held in the year 2019, rather it held in the year 2021, as such, fresh letter was not required. Moreover, the said political party did not come forward to disown recognition of candidature of the petitioner of the political party. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner filed an interim petition in the election petition aforesaid praying for summoning of the Returning Officer as well as head of the political party, but the prayer was opposed by the respondent and the Court declined to summon them for their evidence which would have been thrown light on the compliance of requirement of law. 19. Let notice should go to respondent No.2 through both the processes in both the writ petitions. 20. Requisites be filed within a week. 21. On compliance of the same, Registry shall proceed. 22. Call for lower court records. 23. Considering the facts narrated above, operation of the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed in respective election petitions above referred shall remain stayed till further order. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent has provided his personal brief of reply filed in this matter. Registry shall place the reply filed on the record. 25. List in the first week of July, 2025.