- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajendra Singh v. State Of M.P And Others
Summary of Opinion — S. Verma, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner contested the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Goara, Tahsil Mehgaon, District Bhind in the election held on 2 June 1978. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were other candidates; Respondent No. 3 (Madhosingh) was declared elected as Sarpanch. By a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenged the validity of the election of Respondent No. 3 and, more particularly, attacked the validity of certain provisions of the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978), the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978), and the M. P. Gram Panchayat Nirwachan Tatha Sahyojan Niyam, 1978 (the 1978 Rules).
The Court noted that other grounds available under Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act could not be considered in this writ petition by reason of an earlier order (reported at 1978 Jab LJ 715). The Court therefore confined its consideration to the constitutional and legal validity challenges directed at the Amendment Act, the Ordinance and the 1978 Rules.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 6-A(1)(a) (introducing a minimum voting age of 18 years for Gram Sabha voters) is ultra vires Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by reducing the qualifying age from 21 to 18.
- Whether the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 (requiring nomination of an Up-sarpanch from Scheduled Castes/Tribes where the Sarpanch is not from those groups) violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the voters list prepared under Section 5 of the Panchayats Act can be adopted for elections to the Gram Panchayat or whether a separate statutory provision is required for that purpose.
- Whether insertion of Sub-section (5) in Section 17 by the Ordinance (made effective retrospectively) is invalid as violative of Article 20 of the Constitution.
- Whether Sub-section (4) of Section 11 (empowering division of Gram Sabha areas into wards by Collector) is ineffective because the 1978 Rules' preamble omitted explicit mention of Section 11(4).
- Whether rules required by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 had been validly framed (i.e., whether the 1978 Rules properly enacted under that provision).
- Whether the 1978 Rules are inadequate after reduction of voting age (e.g., insufficient procedural detail, no appeal after finalisation of the voters list) and thus invalid.
- Whether the 1978 Rules were invalid for non-compliance with Sub-section (3) of Section 319 (previous publication) and Section 24 of the M. P. General Clauses Act (publication of draft rules and consideration of objections).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Section 6-A(1)(a) is ultra vires Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 because it reduces the voter qualifying age from 21 to 18 for Gram Sabha elections, whereas Section 19 and Article 326 fix 21 as minimum age for House of People and Legislative Assembly elections.
- The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 (nomination of Up-sarpanch from Scheduled Castes/Tribes where Sarpanch is not from those groups) violates Article 14.
- The voters list prepared under Section 5 (for Gram Sabha) cannot be adopted for election to the Gram Panchayat because there is no specific statutory provision permitting such adoption; a separate provision akin to Section 5 is required for Gram Panchayat elections.
- The insertion of Sub-section (5) in Section 17 by the Ordinance is retrospective (effective from 19 September 1977 though published later) and introduces an additional disqualification, thereby violating Article 20 (prohibition of ex post facto criminal law).
- Sub-section (4) of Section 11 provides for division into wards by the Collector, but the 1978 Rules are not framed under Section 11(4) (the Rules' preamble omits explicit mention of Section 11(4)), leaving the Collector without statutory guidelines.
- No rules have been framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 for preparation, revision and correction of voters lists (contention that 1978 Rules do not satisfy s5(2)).
- By reducing qualifying age and thereby increasing eligible voters, more elaborate rules should have been framed; the 1978 Rules largely replicate 1973 rules and lack provisions (for example an appeal after final decision) which petitioner says is inadequate.
- The 1978 Rules are invalid for non-compliance with Section 319(3) and Section 24 of the General Clauses Act — specifically the contention that draft rules were not properly published or made available (and that they were not published in any newspaper).
Respondent's Point(s) as Noted by the Court
- The learned Government Advocate produced the M. P. Rajpatra to show previous publication of the draft 1978 Rules in the Gazette dated 8-2-1978, with notice and opportunity for objections; the final publication was duly made thereafter.
- The Court was informed (and observed) that there is no legal requirement to publish draft rules in a newspaper; the statutory requirement is previous publication as contemplated by Section 319(3) and Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.
- The 1978 Rules' preamble expressly cites Section 5(2) of the Act as one of the enabling provisions for framing those rules (supporting validity under s5(2)).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1978 Jab LJ 715 (Laxmansingh v. The State of M. P. and others) — order dated 14-9-1978 in Misc. Petn. No. 95 of 1978 | Establishes that grounds available in an election petition under Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act are not to be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 when an adequate alternative remedy by election petition exists. | The Court relied on this prior order/report to exclude from consideration any grounds that are properly the subject of an election petition under Section 357; the present writ was limited to constitutional and legal validity challenges to the Amendment Act, Ordinance and the 1978 Rules. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court addressed each contention sequentially and confined itself to matters of legal and constitutional validity of the statutory provisions and rules challenged:
1. Challenge to Section 6-A(1)(a) (minimum voter age reduced to 18)
The Court examined the language of Section 6-A and observed that Clause (a) explicitly sets minimum age at 18, while Clause (c) only preserves other qualifications as prescribed for Legislative Assembly electoral rolls. The Court held that Clause (c) does not override Clause (a). It further concluded that provisions of the Panchayats Act are not subject to the Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 326 prescribe qualifications for parliamentary and Assembly elections but do not govern qualifications for inclusion in Panchayat voters lists. On principle the Court found no flaw in the Legislature reducing the age for Panchayat elections and declined to interfere with the legislative choice. The argument was rejected.
2. Challenge to proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 (representation of Scheduled Castes/Tribes)
The Court described the object of the proviso as ensuring that either the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanch belongs to Scheduled Castes/Tribes. It held that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes constitute a distinct class and that provisions to ensure their participation in village administration are consonant with constitutional objectives of providing opportunities to weaker sections. The classification was held to be reasonable and to have a rational nexus with the object. The Article 14 challenge was therefore rejected.
3. Whether voters list under Section 5 can be used for Gram Panchayat elections
The Court read Chapters II (Gram Sabhas) and III (Gram Panchayats) as a whole and analysed Sections 3–12 and the rule-making power (Section 318). It observed Section 5 requires preparation of a voters list for every Gram Sabha area and that the Gram Panchayat is constituted for every Gram Sabha; Section 10 and related provisions indicate the voters list prepared under Section 5 is intended for election to the Gram Panchayat. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that a separate voters list provision was required; the amendment making Sarpanch directly elected explained why subsection (1) of Section 21 was added. The argument failed.
4. Challenge to insertion of Sub-section (5) in Section 17 as violative of Article 20
The Court considered the contention that the provision was made effective retrospectively and introduced an additional disqualification, thereby invoking Article 20's bar on ex post facto criminal laws. The Court held Article 20 had no application because a provision disqualifying a person from contesting an election does not amount to an ex post facto criminal law. The argument was rejected.
5. Division into wards under Section 11(4) and adequacy of rule-making authority
The petitioner attacked the 1978 Rules on the ground that their preamble did not explicitly mention Section 11(4). The Court noted Rule 3 (and Sub-rule (1)) expressly refers to Section 11(4) and that the preamble did refer to the general rule-making power in Section 318 and Section 12. The Court held it was not necessary to specify Section 11(4) in the preamble because that provision deals with mode of division into wards while the rule-making power is found elsewhere; the existence of rule-making power and the framing of Rule 3 provided adequate guidance to the Collector. The challenge failed.
6. Alleged failure to frame rules under Section 5(2)
The Court observed the 1978 Rules expressly state in their preamble that Section 5(2) is among the enabling provisions. All matters required to be provided for were contained in the 1978 Rules. The Court rejected the contention that rules under Section 5(2) had not been framed.
7. Adequacy of the 1978 Rules after reduction of voter age (procedural sufficiency and absence of appeal)
The Court compared the 1978 Rules with the earlier 1973 rules and noted they provided for preparation and publication of a provisional voters list and an opportunity to file objections and seek inclusion before finalisation. The absence of an appeal after the final decision under Rule 8 was noted but the Court held that absence of an appeal provision alone did not invalidate the rules for village Panchayat elections; a more elaborate procedure was not deemed necessary. The challenge failed.
8. Publication requirements under Section 319(3) and Section 24 of the General Clauses Act
The Court explained that Section 319(3) requires previous publication and Section 24 of the General Clauses Act requires publication of draft rules and consideration of objections. Clause (e) of Section 24 creates a presumption that publication in the Gazette of rules after previous publication is conclusive proof that they were duly made. The Government Advocate produced the Gazette entry dated 8-2-1978 showing previous publication and notice; final publication followed. The Court further observed there is no statutory requirement to publish the draft rules in a newspaper. The presumption of due publication applied and the challenge was rejected.
9. Overall conclusion of analysis
Having considered each contention, the Court held there was no invalidity in the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978, the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, or the M. P. Gram Panchayat Nirwachan Tatha Sahyojan Niyam, 1978. The Court reiterated that any other grounds of challenge that fall outside the ambit of these attacks (i.e., grounds cognizable under an election petition) could not be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 and that the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy by way of election petition under Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED — The petition is dismissed.
Direct consequences ordered by the Court (as recorded in the opinion):
- The petitioner's challenge to the validity of the Amendment Act, the Ordinance and the 1978 Rules fails; those enactments and rules are held valid.
- The petition is dismissed with costs. Respondent No. 1 (State of M. P.) shall recover its costs from the petitioner.
- Counsel's fee of Rs. 50/– is allowed if certified.
- The remaining amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.
Broader implications: The opinion contains no extended discussion of novel or binding precedent beyond applying ordinary principles of statutory construction, rule-making formalities and classification under Article 14; it affirms that questions properly within the scope of an election petition under Section 357 are not to be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 when an adequate alternative remedy exists.
This summary is drawn exclusively from the provided opinion text and does not add information not present in that text.
S. Verma, J.
1. The petitioner contested for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Goara, tahsil Mehgaon, district Bhind. The election was held on 2nd June 1978, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were the other contesting candidates at that election. Respondent No. 3 Madhosingh has been declared elected to the office of Sarpanch. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of election of the respondent No. 3 as Sarpanch on several grounds which are mentioned hereafter.
2. The petitioner has taken several grounds in this petition. For the reasons given by us in our order D/- 14-9-1978 passed in Misc. Petn. No. 95 of 1978, reported in 1978 Jab LJ 715 (Laxmansingh v. The State of M. P, and four ethers), the grounds which are available in an election petition under Section 357 of the M. P, Panchayats Act are not being considered. We are considering herein only those grounds by which the validity of certain provisions of the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 4 of 1978) the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978); and the M. P. Gram Panchayat Nirwachan Tatha Sahyojan Niyam, 1978 are challenged. It may be mentioned that the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978) has replaced and repealed the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (No. 8 of 1977) and the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978). Shri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made this attack to the validity of the Amendment Act, Ordinance and the 1978 Rules on several grounds which are considered hereafter.
3. The first contention of Shri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Section 6-A (1) (a) introduced in the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962, by the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (hereafter called the Amendment Act) is ultra vires Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 because it reduces the qualifying age of a voter to 18 years instead of 2l years. Learned counsel pointed out that section 5 of the principal act remains unchanged under which a voters list is required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act, but Section 6-A(1)(a) has been introduced to bring about the above result. Prior to the amendment, according to section 6 of the principal act every person who was qualified to be registered in the Assembly roll was eligible to be included in the voters list of the Gram Sabha on account of which the minimum qualifying age of a voter was 21 years as laid down in Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The result of this amendment is that by virtue of Clause (a) the qualifying age of a voter in the Gram Sabha has been reduced to 18 years while other qualifications for being registered as a voter remain substantially the same. This is also clear from Clause (c) in Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A introduced by amendment. Except for relying on Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, learned counsel could not point out any other provision which prohibits reduction of the age of voter from 21 years to 18 years. Learned counsel placed reliance on Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A to contend that the qualifications for being registered as a voter remain the same as those for being registered as a voter in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll.
4. The relevant part of Section 6-A reads as under :--
"6-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 6, every person who --
(a) is not less than 18 years of age on the 1st day of January of the year in which the voters list is prepared or revised:
(b) is ordinarily resident in a Gram Sabha area within the meaning of Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (No. 43 of 1950) subject to modification that references to "Constituency'' therein were a reference to "Gram Sabha area"; and
(c) is otherwise qualified to be registered in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the Gram Sabha area;
shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters for that Gram Sabha area."
A plain reading of the provision shows that clause (c) does not override Clause (a) and it only provides that the qualifications other than those specified in Clauses (a) and (b) for being registered as a voter in the Gram Sabha remain the same as are prescribed for the Legislative Assembly electoral roll. To the extent that a different provision has been made, such as in clause (a), reference to the corresponding qualification for registration in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll is wholly uncalled for. The provisions in the Panchayats Act are not subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is in consonance with Article 326 of the Constitution wherein the minimum qualifying age of 21 years is laid down as a qualification for a voter for elections to the House of People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State. Obviously neither Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 nor Article 326 govern the qualifications of a voter for inclusion in the voters list prepared under the Panchayats Act. No other statutory provision has been relied on to support this argument. Even on principle we find no flaw in this reduction of age in the qualification of a voter for the Panchayat elections. It is a matter of common knowledge that villagers most often mature at an earlier age. If the Legislature in its wisdom, unfettered by any prohibition, has thought it fit to reduce the age of a voter for the Pan-
chayat elections, there is no ground on which this Court can interfere with the same. That being so, there is no merit in this argument and the same is rejected.
5. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 21 introduced by the Amendment Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, ultra vires. The relevant part of Section 21 reads as under :--
"21. (2) Every Gram Panchayat shall have an Up-sarpanch who shall be nominated by the Sarpanch from amongst the panchas of the Gram Panchayat:
Provided that if the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the Up-sarpanch shall be nominated from amongst the panchas belonging to such castes or tribes".
By this provision it is laid down that in a Gram Panchayat where the Sarpanch does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the Up-sarpanch shall be nominated from amongst the panchas belonging to such castes or tribes. The object of the provision clearly is to ensure that either the Sarpanch or the Up-sarpanch of every Gram Panchayat belongs to one of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It is difficult for us to appreciate how such a provision made for ensuring proper representation of the weaker section of society in the administration at the Gram Panchayat level can be said to infringe Article 14. It can hardly be doubted that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, i.e. the weaker section of the society constitute a distinct class and some provision to ensure their participation in the administration at the village level is in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. Adequate provision has to be made so as to provide opportunities to them to come at par with other classes of society which are better placed and more privileged. A provision of this nature is certainly in consonance with this laudable object and fully satisfies the permissible classification under our Constitution. The classification is reasonable and it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This argument also has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
6. The next contention of learned counsel is that the voters list for the Gram Sabha prepared in accordance with Section 5 of the Panchayats Act cannot be adopted for election to the Gram Panchayat since there is no statutory provision in the Act permitting such a course. The argument is that there should be a separate provision for preparation of the voters list for election to the Gram Panchayat akin to Section 5 of the Act which provides for preparation of voters list for the Gram Sabha. Learned counsel points out that for election of a Sarpanch, the Amendment Act introduces sub-section (1) in Section 21 to make such a provision. He contends that there is no similar provision for the voters list to be used for election to the office of Panchas. This ingenious argument only shows that the legislation is not too well drafted but then there is no such fatal defect as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Chapter II of the Panchayats Act with its heading "Gram Sabhas" contains Sections 3 to 9. Chapter III is headed "Gram Panchayats" and contains Sections 10 to 37. Section 5 lays down that for every Gram Sabha area there shall be a voters list prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the State Government is empowered to make rules consistent with the Act providing for the preparation, revision and correction of the list of voters from time to time. Thereafter qualifications for registration as voter are laid down. Section 10 lays down that for every Gram Sabha, there shall be a Gram Panchayat constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute that the voters list prepared under Section 5 of the Act is not required for holding any other election to the Gram Sabha except that of the Gram Panchayat constituted under the Act. Section 11 provides for the constitution of Gram Panchayat and Section 12 with the manner of election and co-option thereto. Section 318 lays down the rule making power of the State Government. Reading all these provisions as a whole, there can be no doubt that the voters list prepared under section 5 of the; act is for the purpose of election to the Gram Panchayat. Any other construction would render the voters list as exercise in futility because it is not required to serve any other purpose. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 introduced by amendment and relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner does not lead to the conclusion suggested by him.
Prior to the amendment, the election to the office of Sarpanch was not direct and only the Panchas were elected directly. The effect of this amendment is that the Sarpanch is also to be elected directly like the Panchas. Apparently, it was for this reason that such an additional provision was considered necessary and Sub-section (1) of Section 21 was enacted. This argument also has no merit and is rejected.
8. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the insertion of Sub-section (5) in Section 17 of the principal Act by the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978) is invalid being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution. The argument is that this provision has been brought into force from 19th September 1977 even though it was published in the Gazette on 13-5-1978 and it introduces retrospectively an additional disqualification for a candidate on account of which it violates Article 20 of the Constitution. A plain reading of Article 20 shows that the same has no application. When this fact was pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner, he had nothing more to add. It is obvious that a provision providing for disqualification for contesting an election does not amount to an ex post facto criminal law so as to attract the prohibition contained in Article 20 of the Constitution. This contention is also, therefore, rejected.
9. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the constitution of wards. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 introduced by the Amendment Act provides that each Gram Sabha area shall be divided into such number of wards as may be determined by the Collector and each ward shall be a single member ward. The attack is on the ground that the 1978 Rules are not framed under Section 11 (4) of the Act so that in substance there are no rules to provide guidelines to the Collector for dividing the Gram Sabha into wards. There is no dispute that Rule 3 of the 1978 Rules gives the requisite guidance and Sub-rule (1) thereof expressly refers to Section 11 (4) but the contention is that the preamble to the Rules while mentioning the other enabling provisions conferring power to frame rules, does not specify Section 11 (4) of the Act. There is no merit in this argument. As earlier stated, Rule 3 expressly refers to Section 11 (4) of the Act so that there can be no ambiguity in this respect. No doubt, while enumerating the several Sections of the Act which confer rule making power on the State Government, Section 11 (4) has not been mentioned but then the general rule making power contained in Section 318 has been mentioned as also Section 12 of the Act. We are also of the opinion that it was not necessary to specify Section 11 (4) in the Preamble to the Rules because that provision deals only with the mode of division of the Gram Sabha area into wards and not with the rule making power which is contained in different provisions of the Act which have been specified in the Preamble to the Rules. No other discussion of this point is necessary because the existence of such a power in the State Government and the actual framing of a rule to provide requisite guidance to the Collector while exercising his power under Section 11 (4) is rightly not disputed. This argument also fails and is rejected.
10. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the principal Act required the State Government to make rules for the preparation, revision and correction of the list of voters from time to time and publication thereof, no such rules have been framed under section 5 (2). This argument is clearly fallacious. The aforesaid 1978 Rules which provide for these matters expressly state in its Preamble Section 5 (2) of the Act as one of the enabling provisions for framing those rules. All the matters required to bf provided for in these rules have undoubtedly been laid down. This argument is also rejected.
11. It is then urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that while reducing the qualifying age of a voter from 21 years to 18 years resulting in the increase of number of eligible voters, it was necessary to frame more elaborate rules which has not been done by the aforesaid 1978 Rules. Learned counsel points out that the relevant parts of the 1978 Rules dealing with the preparation, revision and correction of the voters list are substantially the same as those contained in the earlier set of rules of 1973 and that there is also no provision for an appeal after the final decision of the authority in accordance with Rule 8, There is no fundamental defect of any kind in these rules. The rules clearly provide for preparation and publication of the provisional list of voters so as to give an opportunity to all persons concerned to file their objections, if any, to the preparation of the voters list. If any eligible voter is left out of the provisional voters list, the rules provide for an opportunity to him to file his objection for having his name included in the voters list before it is finalised. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the provision in these rules for the preparation and publication of the voters list can be challenged as inadequate. So far as the absence of any provision of appeal is concerned, that by itself would not invalidate the 1973 Rules. For elections at the village Panchayat level, a more elaborate procedure was apparently not thought fit. It is sufficient to say that this does not in any manner show defect which can invalidate the rules. This argument also fails and is rejected.
12. It was lastly urged that the 1978 Rules were invalid because of non-compliance with sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the Panchayats Act and Section 24 of the M. P. General Clauses Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 319 only requires that all rules made shall be subject to the condition of previous publication. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act then provides for publication of the draft rules for information of persons likely to be affected, in such manner as the authority concerned deems to be sufficient, along with a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration. It also requires the authority to consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by it before the date specified. clause (e) of section 24 then lays down that the publication in the official Gazettee of a rule purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule has been duly made. This presumption is clearly available in the present case and nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to detract from the value of that presumption. In the present case, there is no such infirmity relating to publication of the Rules. The learned Government Advocate placed before us the M. P. Rajpatra to show that there was previous publication of the draft rules in the Gazette dated 8-2-1978 giving at the same time notice and opportunity to all concerned to submit any objections or proposals concerning the same. The final publication was duly made thereafter, Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that even though due publication was made of these rules in the official Gazette as required by these statutory provisions yet the same were not published in any newspaper. It is sufficient to say that there is no such requirement prescribed by law. The only requirements of the two provisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner have undoubtedly been complied with. This argument also has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no invalidity in either the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978) or the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978) or the M. P. Gram Panchayat Nirwachan Tatha Sahyojan Niyam, 1978. The petitioner's challenge to the validity of the Act, the Ordinance and the Rules, therefore, fails. As earlier stated, any other ground of challenge falling outside the ambit of this attack cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for which the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy by way of election petition under Section 357 of the M. P. Panchayats Act.
14. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. The respondent No. 1 State of M. P. shall get its cost from the petitioner. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/-if certified. The remaining amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.
Alert