JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The amendment is allowed in terms of draft. Respondent No.3-Dashrathbhai Govabhai Vankar is allowed to be joined as a party respondent No.3 forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Keshkani appears for respondent no.3 on caveat. 3. Learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya appearing for the respondent No.1 has tendered the compilation of the communications and also declaration of the result. The same are ordered to be taken on record. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “19(B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.6.2025 (Annexure-G) passed by Election Officer, Bantai Gram Panchayat and Deputy Mamlatdar, A.T.V.T. Detroj- Rampura rejecting nomination paper of petitioner for the post of Sarpanch, Bantai Gram Panchayat for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal, in the interest of justice;” BRIEF FACTS 5. The respondent No.1-State Election Commission of Gujarat has declared the Election Program for the general / mid-term / bi-election of various Gram Panchayats of the State of Gujarat on 28.05.2025 and accordingly, the petitioner, who is a resident of Bantai, Taluka Detroj - Rampura, District Ahmedabad, also filled a Nomination Form for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch, Bantai Gram Panchayat on 09.06.2025. 6. The respondent No.1 was appointed as a District Election Officer and Returning Officer under Rule 4A of the Gujarat Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (for short “the Election Rules”). 7. The petitioner deposited Rs.1,000/- being an amount of deposit under Rule 13(1) of the Election Rules on 09.06.2025 and accordingly, produced a receipt before the respondent No.2. On submitting the Nomination Form, the petitioner has been issued a notice by the respondent No.2 on 09.06.2025 that the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the election will be undertaken on 10.06.2025 in the Mamlatdar office. 8. On submitting the Nomination Form, the petitioner has been issued a notice by the respondent No.2 on 09.06.2025 that the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the election will be undertaken on 10.06.2025 in the Mamlatdar office. 8. As per the provisions of Rule 12 of the Election Rules, the time for filling-up the nomination papers is 11:00 a.m. to 03:00 p.m. and under Rule 12(3) of the Election Rules, the Returning Officer / Election Officer has to verify the details furnished by the candidate in the Nomination Form and invite the attention of the candidate, if there is any mistake and permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper to be corrected. 9. After the petitioner filed the nomination paper under Rule 13 of the Election Rules, the scrutiny thereof was undertaken on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination paper under clause (b) of Rule 9(2) of the Election Rules. The nomination paper of the petitioner was examined by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, by a written order, the petitioner was intimated on 10.06.2025 at 12:20 p.m. in Part-5 however, as there was no objection raised by anybody, the respondent No.2 had endorsed the nomination paper of the petitioner as accepted. 10. Today, learned advocate Mr.Rao has tendered the original acceptance of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer. A photocopy is already on record at Annexure-E. 11. Thus, it is not in dispute that the nomination paper of the petitioner was accepted by the Returning Officer on 10.06.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that she received a call at 02:12 p.m. from the respondent No.1 calling upon her for providing certain information. Thereafter, she again received a call at about 05:50 p.m. from the respondent No.2 on her mobile phone intimating her that her nomination paper is rejected by the respondent No.2 on the ground that her name is included in the Voters’ List in more than one place and accordingly, the respondent No.2 sent a copy of the order dated 10.06.2025 on the WhatsApp on the mobile number given by the petitioner in her nomination paper at 06:09 p.m. the Screenshot of WhatsApp message of the order dated 10.06.2025 is also annexed in the writ petition at Annexure-G. 12. Thereafter, on 11.06.2025, the Returning Officer under Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules, declared the private respondent no.3 as uncontested elected for the post of Sarpanch. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 13. Learned advocate Mr.Rao appearing for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Savitriben Rajeshbhai Padaliya Vs. Gujarat State Election Commission , 2016 JX (Guj.) 1776 [in Special Civil Application No.19229 of 2016 dated 17.11.2016], has submitted that there is no power under the Election Rules conferred on the Returning Officer to review his own decision and reject the nomination of the petitioner once it has been accepted. 14. He has also referred to the Election Program at Annexure-A (Page No.18) declared vide Notification dated 28.05.2025 and has submitted that as per the program declared by the Election Commission, last date of withdrawal of the nomination of a candidate was 11.06.2025 and on the very same date, the Returning Officer/ Election Officer, while exercising power under Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules, has declared the private respondent i.e. respondent No.3 as elected candidate on the post of Sarpanch of Bantai Gram Panchayat, Taluka Detroj-Rampura, District Ahmedabad. 15. Learned advocate Mr.Rao has submitted that it was not open for the Returning Officer / Election Officer to declare the private respondent- respondent No.3 as an elected candidate on the day, when the candidates were supposed to withdraw their nomination. It is submitted that the election process is yet to be over on 27.06.2025 and only after notification is declared about the election of the private respondent on the post of Sarpanch, it can be said that the election process is over and this Court can interfere in the illegal and arbitrary action of the Election Officer. He has also referred to Rule 15 of the Election Rules and has submitted that after acceptance of the nomination paper, the respondent No.2, in colourable exercise of power against the provision of law, has tainted the election process and he could not have declared the private respondent as elected. 16. Learned advocate Mr.Rao has further submitted that no objection was taken by anyone to the nomination paper of the petitioner and once no objection was considered by the respondent No.2, it was not open for him to thereafter reject the nomination. 16. Learned advocate Mr.Rao has further submitted that no objection was taken by anyone to the nomination paper of the petitioner and once no objection was considered by the respondent No.2, it was not open for him to thereafter reject the nomination. It is submitted that after having exercised the power under Rule 15(6) of the Election Rules, the respondent No.2 cannot fall back to Rule 15(5) of the Election Rules and hence, it is submitted that such illegal and arbitrary action can be interfered by this Court in the writ petition. 17. Further reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr.Rao on the judgements of this Court in the case of Baria Ambaben Vikrambhai vs. State of Gujarat Thro’ Collector and Anr. , 2008 (1) G.L.H. 247 and in the case of Marutiben Dhudabhai Gamar vs. State Election Commission , 2018 (2) GLR 1382 . He has also contended that the objection, taken by the respondent No.2 for rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner of her name figuring in the Voters’ List at two places will no have any impact in contesting the election as there is no bar prescribed either under the provision of the GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT , 1993 or under the Election Rules. He has also contended that the petitioner had already approached the Election Commission by filing an application on 17.12.2024 to remove her name from the Voters’ List of 54-Danilimda, East Ahmedabad, Kankariya, Ward-36 however, he has submitted that nothing was done and thus, she filled-in Form No.7 on the Website of the Election Commission of India for deleting her name from the said list. It is submitted that accordingly, the Election Commission of India will delete her name from the election and hence, it is urged that this Court may quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Returning Officer / Election Officer and direct the authority to hold a fresh election, after including the name of the petitioner in the list of validity nominated candidates. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ELECTION OFFICER: 18. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya appearing for the respondent no.2 has referred to the compilation, which has been produced before this Court. She has submitted that on 09.06.2025, the Election Officer received objection against the nomination of the petitioner however, he has failed to consider the same. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ELECTION OFFICER: 18. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya appearing for the respondent no.2 has referred to the compilation, which has been produced before this Court. She has submitted that on 09.06.2025, the Election Officer received objection against the nomination of the petitioner however, he has failed to consider the same. Again on 10.06.2025, he inquired from the petitioner about her name in two oters’ lists and she was called upon to tender necessary explanation. It is submitted by her that the respondent no.2 on 10.06.2025 also, inquired from the Returning Officer of Danilimda, Kankariya Ward-36 to give information about the name of the petitioner, which figures at Sr.No.982 of Kankariya Ward-36. Accordingly, it is submitted that information was received that the name of the petitioner also figures in the Voters’ list of Kankariya Ward-36 and accordingly, thereafter, the Returning Officer has exercised his discretion to revoke the nomination paper of the petitioner. She has further submitted that while exercising power under Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules, the private respondent has been declared as uncontested candidate and hence, it is urged that the only relief, for which the petitioner is entitled, is to avail alternative remedy of filing an election petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3: 19. Learned advocate Mr.Keshkani appearing for the respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition and has submitted that the same is not maintainable in view of the subsequent development of declaration of the respondent No.3 as an elected candidate and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an election petition challenging the election. He has submitted that the judgement, on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner, will not apply to the facts of the present case as looking to the stage of election, wherein the respondent No.3 is already declared as elected. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has accordingly, acted in accordance with Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules and has submitted that he has power to declare the respondent No.3 as an uncontested candidate since there was no one else, who had filed the nomination for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Bantai Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has accordingly, acted in accordance with Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules and has submitted that he has power to declare the respondent No.3 as an uncontested candidate since there was no one else, who had filed the nomination for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Bantai Gram Panchayat. While referring to the affidavit, which has been sworn by the petitioner, he has submitted that the same is not in consonance with Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and it is urged that the writ petition may be rejected. 20. Learned AGP Ms.Dhruve appearing for the respondent No.2 has adopted the submissions advanced by learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya appearing for the respondent No.1. ANALYSIS AND OPINION: 21. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 22. The explicit facts, which are arising from the rival pleadings, are that the petitioner, who has filed the nomination paper for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Bantai Gram Panchayat on 09.06.2025 was thereafter, prevented from contesting the election by the respondent No.2 by rejecting her nomination paper after accepting the same. 23. We may at this stage, summarily refer to the relevant provisions of the Election Rules regulating election. Rule 12(3): The Returning Officer is to satisfy himself about nomination form or paper which has been submitted by the respective candidates and he has to invite the attention of a candidate or proposer as the case may be, if he finds some discrepancy in the names of the list of the voters. The Returning Officer is also empowered to permit any clerical and technical error in the nomination papers to be corrected in order to bring them in conformity in corresponding entries in the list of voters. Rule 15 : It empowers the Election Officer to scrutinize the nomination. Rule 15(2) : It mandates that the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections, which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion after such summary inquiry if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination paper on any ground mentioned therein. Rule 15(5): Under this Rule, the Returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the appointed date. 24. Rule 15(5): Under this Rule, the Returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the appointed date. 24. We may incorporate Rule 15(6) of the Election Rules, which is as under: “15(6) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection and supply a certified copy of the order to the candidate as soon as possible after the scrutiny is over, even in the absence of an application from him and without any cost.” 25. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules reveals that the Returning Officer has to endorse on each nomination papers his decision accepting or rejecting the same. Accordingly, on 10.06.2025 at 12:20 p.m., the nomination paper of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent No.2 however, on the very same day, in the evening, the respondent No.2 rejected the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch and order dated 10.06.2025 was sent on the WhatsApp to the petitioner at 06:00 p.m. The order dated 10.06.2025, which is impugned in the present petition, mentions the receipt of rejection of the nomination paper. The nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that her name is in the Voters’ list of Kankariya Ward and the same figures at Sr.No.982. It also refers to the provisions of Section 21 of the GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT , 1993. 26. We may now refer to the Election Program, which has been declared vide Notification dated 28.05.2025. The same is translated and incorporated as under: “1. The State Election Commission has declared the following schedule for the Common/ Divisional/ Midterm/ Bye-Elections to the Gram Panchayats listed in the register annexed herewith. Sr.No. Particulars Date 1. Date of Announcement of Election 28/05/2025 2. Date of Issue of Gazette Notification 02/06/2025 3. Last Date of Nomination 09/06/2025 4. Date of Scrutiny of Nominations 10/06/2025 5. Last Date of Withdrawal of Candidatures 11/06/2025 6. Date and Time of Poll 22/06/2025 (Sunday) From 07:00 am to 06:00 pm 7. Date of Re-Poll (If necessary) 24/06/2025 8. Date of Counting 25/06/2025 9. Date of Completion of Election Process 27/06/2025” 27. Thus, the scrutiny of the nomination under Rule 15(5) of the Election Rules, was scheduled on 10.06.2025. Last Date of Withdrawal of Candidatures 11/06/2025 6. Date and Time of Poll 22/06/2025 (Sunday) From 07:00 am to 06:00 pm 7. Date of Re-Poll (If necessary) 24/06/2025 8. Date of Counting 25/06/2025 9. Date of Completion of Election Process 27/06/2025” 27. Thus, the scrutiny of the nomination under Rule 15(5) of the Election Rules, was scheduled on 10.06.2025. After undertaking scrutiny, the nomination paper of the Returning Officer accepted it under the provision of Rule 15(6). After it was accepted, he gain undertook scrutiny or reviewed his decision of accepting the nomination paper and thereafter rejected on the very same day in the evening. Thus, in fact the Returning Officer committed a patent illegality in falling back to the stage of Rule 15(5) and rejected the nomination paper, which is impermissible under the statute. 28. When a specific query was raised by this Court to the learned advocates appearing for the respondents to point out the provision of law, which empowers the respondent No.2 to exercise his power for reviewing the acceptance of nomination paper and thereafter cancelling the same; no provision of law has been pointed out. 29. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Savitriben Rajeshbhai Padaliya (supra). On an identical issue, wherein the Returning Officer, after acceptance of the nomination paper, has reviewed the decision on the basis of the objection, the Court has struck down as illegal and arbitrary action, which is contrary to the provision of Rule 16 of the Election Rules. The Division Bench has held as under: “12. Besides, whether or not the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing pales into insignificance in view of the fact that the mandate of the statute is to the effect that once a decision of the returning officer regarding acceptance or rejection of nomination paper has been taken, the same shall be final and there was no power vested in the returning officer to review his order on the basis of objections received subsequently. The entire exercise carried on by the second respondent is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of rule 16 of the rules and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 13. The entire exercise carried on by the second respondent is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of rule 16 of the rules and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 13. Having regard to the controversy in issue, a question may arise as regards the maintainability of the petition in view of the fact that the term “election” has been widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India through the Secretary v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216 , and more particularly, to paragraph 32 thereof, wherein the Supreme Court has held that any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by the Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. 14. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the court is of the considered view that it is possible for the court to smoothen the progress of the election proceedings without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings by judicial intervention. 14. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the court is of the considered view that it is possible for the court to smoothen the progress of the election proceedings without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings by judicial intervention. Besides, having regard to the facts of the case as referred to hereinabove and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the second respondent including overwriting in the form, it is amply clear that this is a case of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of the second respondent, which is completely in breach of the provisions of rule 16 of the rules. Under the circumstances, the general prohibition against entertaining a petition after the date of notification would not apply in the present case. 15. Before parting, it may be noted that the conduct of the second respondent in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner after the same having been accepted and the manner in which the proceedings have been drawn and tampered with, needs to be strongly deprecated inasmuch as the entire exercise undertaken by him smacks of mala fides, malpractices and arbitrariness.” 30. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has also dealt with the maintainability of the writ petition and has allowed the writ petition and set aside the identical action of the Returning Officer. 31. We may refer to Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules, under which the respondent no.3 is declared uncontested elected to the post of Sarpanch. The same reads as under: “22(2) In any electoral division or, as the case may be, a village if there is only one contesting candidate, then the candidate so contesting shall be declared by the returning officer to have been elected uncontested after the last date of withdrawal is over. The returning officer shall declare the result in Form 12 and shall and a copy of the form to- (a) the Election Commission; (b)the Secretary, to Government Panchayats and Rural Housing Department; (C) the Development Commissioner; (d) the District Development Officer; (e) the Taluka Development Officer; and (f) the officer of the village panchayat in the case of election to village panchayar or election or election of Sarpanch of a village panchayat;” 32. Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules mandates that in the village, if there is only one contesting candidate, then such candidate so contesting, shall be declared to have been elected uncontested after “the last date of withdrawal” by the Returning Officer. It further mandates that the Returning Officer shall declare the result in Form-12 and shall send a copy of the form to the authorities mentioned therein. In the present case, it is not in dispute that on the date of withdrawal on i.e. on 11.06.2025, the Returning Officer declared the respondent No.3 as an elected candidate and he issued Form-12 under Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules on the date of withdrawal of the candidature. 33. The expression “last date of withdrawal is over” used in Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules is unambiguous and cannot be tinkered with. It mandates that the Returning Officer has to declare the uncontested candidate as elected only after the ‘last date of withdrawal’ is over and not ‘on the last date of withdrawal’. The provisions of Rule 22(2) of the Election Rules do not authorize the respondent No.2 to declare the respondent No.3 as elected candidate to the post of Sarpanch on the date of withdrawal of the candidature and such declaration is exclusively restricted after the last date of withdrawal and not before that. This Rule is specifically framed in cases of only / sole candidate who is contesting election, and has to be scrupulously followed. 34. Thus, in the present case, the respondent No.2 has blatantly acted against the statutory mandate on two counts – firstly, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner after acceptance; and – secondly, declaring the respondent No.3 elected uncontested on the date of withdrawal of the candidature i.e. on 11.06.2025. 35. The action of the respondent no.2 is very glaring, which can be termed as both – illegal and arbitrary. The Constitutional Court cannot shut its eyes to glaring impropriety committed by the respondent No.2 tainting the process of election, and relegate the petitioner to prefer an election petition. Such an approach will allow the respondent no.3 to hold the post of Sarpanch, which has the substratum of illegality. The bar embedded in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, does not preclude this Court to interfere with illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no.2. Such an approach will allow the respondent no.3 to hold the post of Sarpanch, which has the substratum of illegality. The bar embedded in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, does not preclude this Court to interfere with illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India, Through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2000) 8 S.C.C. 216 has prescribed the following broad parameters, which permits the judicial review by Constitutional Court in the election disputes. “32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove :- 1) If an election, (the term 'election' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. 2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. 3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. 4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. 5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Art. 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the Court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” 36. Thus, in present case, since the respondent no.2 has exercised his powers arbitrarily in blatant violation of the statute, we are constrained to interfere with his decision. 37. We may now deal with the kernel of the issue which prevailed upon the respondent no.2 to revoke and reject the nomination paper of the petitioner. The objection raised by the Returning Officer with regard to figuring of the name of the petitioner in the Voters’ List in two constituencies at two Wards. No provision in this regard has been pointed out before this Court by the learned advocates appearing for the respondents, which enables the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers on this count. In the impugned order dated 10.06.2025, the respondent no.2 has invoked the provision of section 22 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, which reads as under: SECTION 22 : Name of the person not to be included in the list of voters, more than once.- No person shall be entitled to have his name included in the list of voters for any electoral division more than once. However, the disqualification is provided under section 30 of the Act. On a perusal of the contingencies stipulated in section 30, it is apparent that it does not contain any bar in case a person’s name is reflected in more than one list of voters. It is not the case of the respondent no.2 that the name of the petitioner figures in the Voter List in more than one electoral divisions of the same Panchayat. 38. It is not the case of the respondent no.2 that the name of the petitioner figures in the Voter List in more than one electoral divisions of the same Panchayat. 38. We may at this stage, refer to the decision of the Division Bench dated 23.12.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.21065 of 2016 on a similar issue, wherein the Division Bench, after considering the provision of the Election Rules, has held thus: “10. The disqualification for a member of a panchayat either to be elected or to continue is provided under sub- section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. On a perusal of the eventualities enumerated thereunder it is amply clear that the same does not provide for any disqualification in case where a person’s name is reflected in more than one list of voters. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act it can be seen that Section 21 thereof provides that no person shall be entitled to have his name included in the list of voters for more than one electoral division in the same panchayat. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the name of the petitioner is included in more than one electoral divisions of the same panchayat, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act would not be attracted. Section 22 of the Act provides that no person shall be entitled to have his name included in the list of voters for any electoral division more than once. Once again, it is not the case of the respondents that the name of the petitioner is included in the list of voters for the electoral division more than once, therefore, Section 22 of the Act would not be applicable. The learned advocate for the respondents is not in a position to point out any provision of law that debars a person from contesting an election if his name is reflected in more than one list of voters. 11. Moreover, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 of the Gujarat Panchayats Election Rules, 1994 provides that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect which is not of substantial character. A defect of substantial character would mean a defect which goes to the root of the matter and would entail disqualification of a candidate. A defect of substantial character would mean a defect which goes to the root of the matter and would entail disqualification of a candidate. In view of the fact that no disqualification attaches to any candidate merely because his name is reflected in more than one list of voters, even if the name of the petitioner were to be shown in the two list of voters, the same could not be said to be a defect of substantial character so as to warrant rejection of the name of the petitioner. The returning officer was, therefore not justified in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. 12. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order passed by the returning officer being in breach of the proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 15 of the rules as well as having been passed on a ground which does not entail any disqualification, is not sustainable. 13. Insofar as the maintainability of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the returning officer rejecting a nomination is concerned, for the reasons recorded by this court on the question of maintainability in its judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2016 rendered in the case of Dineshbhai Palabhai Patel v. Gujarat State Election Commission in Special Civil Application No.19261 of 2016, this petition is also held to be maintainable. With a view to avoid prolix and considering the urgency of the matter, the reasons are not reiterated herein. However, the reasons recorded in the above decision on the question of maintainability, may be read as forming part of this judgment.” 39. Thus, the reason assigned by the respondent no.2 in revoking the nomination papers by taking shelter under section 22 of the Act is also illegal. In the instant case, the petitioner had already undertaken necessary process by filing an application on 17.12.2024 to remove her name from the list of Voters’ of 54-Danilimda, East Ahmedabad, Kankariya, Ward-36, and her application was also accepted by the Electoral Officer, however, her name was not removed. Thereafter, she has filled-in Form No.7 on the Website of the Election Commission of India for deleting her name from the said list, and it is informed to us, on instructions by learned advocate Ms.Gupta, that necessary deletion of name take couple of days. Thereafter, she has filled-in Form No.7 on the Website of the Election Commission of India for deleting her name from the said list, and it is informed to us, on instructions by learned advocate Ms.Gupta, that necessary deletion of name take couple of days. Thus, under these circumstances, the defect of such nature cannot be termed as of substantial character so as to warrant rejection of the name of the petitioner, that too after accepting her nomination paper. 40. We may also deal with the contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Keshkani with regard to Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court rules, 1993. On a perusal of the affidavit sworn by the petitioner in the writ petition, we find that the affidavit is substantially in consonance with the Rules and a minor lapse cannot be held detrimental to the interest of justice. This Court, while exercising its constitutional power, cannot ignore the vital issue touching upon the sanctity of elections and reject the writ petition solely on the ground informal affidavit. 41. We may summarize the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no.2 : (a) rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner after its acceptance; (b) declaring the respondent no.3 as elected uncontested on the date of withdrawal of the nomination papers; c) reviewing the decision of acceptance of nomination paper by invoking provision of section 22 of the Act, i.e. on the ground that the petitioner’s name figures in the different voters; lists. These illegalities splinter the statutory mandate; hence we cannot relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing an election petition. Such a course if adopted will allow the respondent no.3 to continue and hold the post of Sarpanch till the election petition is decided, which will be an anathema to the concept of free and fair election. The action of the respondent no.2 has tainted the purity of election, and sacrosanctity of rule of law, hence the respondent no,3 cannot be allowed to function on the post of Sarpanch even momentarily. 42. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the facts, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, and also the decision of declaring the respondent no.3 as elected uncontested. We further restore the action of the acceptance of the nomination paper by the respondent No.2 on 10.06.2025. 43. 42. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the facts, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, and also the decision of declaring the respondent no.3 as elected uncontested. We further restore the action of the acceptance of the nomination paper by the respondent No.2 on 10.06.2025. 43. Since the election process is yet to be completed on 27.06.2025 accordingly, we direct to hold the election of Bantai Gram Panchayat forthwith. 44. The present writ petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute.