Wanchoo, C.J:— This is an application by Dalelsingh under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the holding of a by-election for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Samarthali on the ground that the seat of the applicant, who had been elected Sarpanch in December, 1955, had become vacant.

2. The case of applicant is briefly this. He was elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Samarthali in December, 1955. The result of the election was notified in accordance with section 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (Act No. XXI of 193) (hereinafter called the Act) on the 16th of June, 1956. The applicant says that thereafter he went to the Tehsildar to take the oath of office, as required by sec. 15 of the Act. He was then told that his seat had become vacant under sec. 17(2) of the Act and a by - election had been ordered to be held in August: 1956. Consequently, the applicant made the present application challenging the holding of the by election on the ground that his seat had become vacant.

3. The main ground on which the applicant contends that his seat had not become vacant is that the Panchayat can only come into being after the notification under sec. 14 has been issued and as this notification was issued in June, 1956, he could not incur any disqualification if unauthorised meetings of the Panchayat were held between December, 1955 and June, 1956. He, therefore, prays that the Court should direct that his seat had not become vacant and that no by-election should be held.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. The State contends that the provision of sec. 14 of the Act is only directory and the Panchayat can function as such even before the names of the Panchas are published under, sec. 14. It is also said that oath was administered to the applicant and other Panchas by the Tehsildar on the 9th of December, 1955 immediately after the election. The Panchayat thus came into existence after the administration of the oath and was functioning thereafter and a number of meetings were held. The applicant was continually absent from these meetings numbering more than five between 30th of January, 1956 and 21st of May, 1956 without giving any information to the Panchayat and, therefore, his seat became vacant under sec. 17(2) and consequently, by-election had to be ordered. It is also said that the reason why the applicant absented himself was that he had been arrested on the 5th of January, 1956 in connection with Bhooswami agitation and was sentenced to imprisonment and was only released from Jail on 22nd of May, 1956. Apparently, he sent no information from Jail to the Panchayat that he could not attend the meetings.

5. The main question which falls for consideration in this case is whether a notification under sec. 14 of the Act is necessary before a Panchayat can start functioning. We may, in this connection, refer to the following sections of the Act:—

“14. Every election or appointment of a Sarpanch, Upsarpanch and a Panch shall be notified in the Rajasthan Gazette in accordance with rules made under this Act.

15. Every Panch or Sarpanch shall, as soon as possible after his election or appiont-ment, as the case may be, make in the prescribed manner the prescribed oath or affirmation of his office and, unless this is done, shall not perform any of his functions under this Act.

17(2) If any Panch, Sarpanch or Upsarpanch during the term of his office, absents himself from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without giving information in writing to the Panchayat he shall cease to be such Panch, Sarpanch or Upsarpanch and his seat shall become vacant.

(3) If any Panch or Sarpanch fails to make the prescribed oath or affirmation of his office within three months from the date of notification under sec. 14, his seat shall be declared by the State Government to have become vacant.”

6. We may also here refer to certain rules which have a bearing on the point raised before us. Relevant part of R. 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules) is as follows:—

“Upon receipt of the report under rule 17, the Chief Panchayat Officer shall, as soon as possible notify the names of the Panchas, Sarpanch and Upsarpanch so elected or appointed

Rule 19. The validity of the election of any Panch, Sarpanch or Upsarpanch may be challenged by a petition presented by a defeated candidated or by any ten duly qualified electors to the Collector within 15 days from the date of the notification under rule 18…………………

Rule 41. The Returning Officer shall, after declaring the result of election, put the accepted and rejected ballot papers in separate packets——-These packets shall remain in the safe custody of the Tehsil for three months from the publication of the result of election in the Rajasthan Gazette………

Rule 47. Every Panch or Sarpanch of a Panchayat or Tehsil Panchayat elected or appointed under the Act and these rules shall, before entering upon his office as such, take in the presence of the Tehsildar the oath of his office in the following form……’

7. The first question, therefore, is whether sec. 14, to carry out which R. 18 has been framed, is merely directory or mandatory. Our attention in this connection was drawn to Poonma v. Gram Panchayat Of Koselao (1) where a somewhat similar provision under the Rules in the Marwar Panchayat Act was held to be directory. Whether a provision like sec. 14 is mandatory or directory depends upon the scheme of the particular Act in which it is to be found and a decision on one Act cannot be an authority for the interpretation of the nature of a section like sec. 14 in another Act. Looking, therefore, to the provisions of the Rajasthan Act, we must come to the conclusion that sec. 14 is mandatory and cannot be held to be merely directory. Our reasons for this conclusion may be briefly stated. Sec. 17(3) of the Act lays down a period of three months after the publication under sec. 14 for taking the oath, after which the seat becomes vacant in case the oath is not taken. R. 19 of the Rules lays down that an election petition can be filed within fifteen days of the notification under R. 18, which rule has been framed to carry out the purpose of sec. 14. Again, under R. 41, the Tehsildar has to preserve the ballot papers etc. for three months after the notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, the notification, of course, being under sec. 14. Therefore, so far as the Act is concerned, notification under sec. 14 has a purpose behind it, the most important of which that an election petition can only be filed after the notification under sec. 14 has been made and within 15 days of such notification. Therefore, it cannot be held that sec. 14 of the Act is merely directory. In the setting in which it appears, it must be held to be mandatory, for certain other provisions in the Act and Rules depend on the notification having been first made.

8. This, however, does not dispose of the matter. What the applicant wants us to hold is not only that sec. 14 is mandatory, but that it has to be read to mean that unless the notification under sec. 14 is issued, the Panchayat is not constituted and cannot begin to function. Now, there is nothing in sec. 14 itself which lays down that the Panchayat would be constituted only after the notification has been issued under that section. Where the intention is that an elective body would come into existence after a certain notification, the law generally makes specific provision for that. We may, in this connection refer to sec. 73 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951) where it is specifically laid down that the Assembly or the Parliament would be constituted after the Election Commission has declared the result of the elections in the Government Gazatte, Sec. 14 of the Act, however, merely lays down that a notification shall be made; but it does not lay down further that until such notification is made, the Panchayat is not constituted and cannot function. Therefore, even though sec. 14 may be mandatory for certain purposes, it cannot be read to mean that Panchayat cannot function until such a notification is made.

9. So far as the functioning of the Panchayat is concerned, we have to took to sec. 15. That section provides that every Panch or Sarpanch shall lake the oath of office as soon as possible after his election or appointment and unless this is done, shall not perform any of his function under the Act. It follows from this that as soon as the Panch and Sarpanch have taken the oath of office, they can perform all their functions under the Act and the Panchayat comes into existence. It is, however, urged that sec. 15 should be read subject to sec. 14 and that the oath prescribed under sec. 15 cannot be taken unless and until the notification under sec. 14 has been made. Now sec. 15 follows immediately on sec. 14 and if the intention of the legislature was that the oath under sec. 15 cannot be taken until the notification under sec. 14 has been issued, there was nothing to prevent the legislature from saving under sec. 15 that every Panch and Sarpanch shall, as soon as possible after the notification under sec. 14, take the oath of office; but the legislature did not say so. It laid down that every Panch or Sarpanch shall take the oath of office as soon as possible after his election or appointment. Mow, the election of a Panch or Sarpanch is complete under R. 12 immediately after the Returning Officer declares the result of the election. Similarly, the appointment is complete as soon as the Chief Panchayat Officer or the Government makes the appointment under sec. or sec. 9. Notification comes in after the election is over or the appointment has been made. Sec., 15 provides that the oath of office shall be given as soon as possible after the election or appointment and not after the notification under sec. 14. There is, in our opinion, no reason, to read into sec. 15 something which is not there. The two sections, namely secs. 14 and 15 can exist independently and it is not necessary to read sec. 14 into sec. 15 and to hold that a Panchayat cannot come into being unless the notification is made. The notification under sec. 14 may be necessary for certain purposes, as already pointedly out by us; but it is not necessary to constitute a Panchayat and bring it into existence. For that, all that is necessary is that the Panch and Sarpanch should take oaths of office as soon as possible after their election or appointment. If that has been done, the Panchayat comes into existence and the Panchas and Sarpanch can function and they need not wait for the notification under sec. 14. We see no inconsistency in holding this.

10. It has been urged that sec. 17(3) shows that the intention of the legislature must have been that the Panchayat should come into existence after the notification under sec. 14. Sec. 17(3) provides that if a Panch or Sarpanch fails to take the oath within three months from the date of notification under sec. 14, his seat shall be declared vacant by the State Government. It is said that if the intention was that the Panchayat could begin functioning even before the notification under sec. 14 was made, there was no point in giving three months' time to take the oath after the notification. Sec. 17(3) again is not a sec. which says anything as to when the Panchayat is to come into existence. It only lays down a certain disqualification which may be incurred by a Panch or Sarpanch if he does not take the oath. The time up to which a Panch or Sarpanch can take the oath of office is fixed under this sub-section with reference to the notification under sec. 14. Thus, a Panch or Sarpanch can take oath under sec. 15 immediately after the election; but if he has not done so, his seat cannot be declared vacant till three months have elapsed after the notification under sec. 14. The Panch or Sarpanch is thus given an extended time within which to take the oath of office. But it does not follow from this that we should read into sec. 15 more than what it says and hold that a Panchayat cannot function till a notification under sec. 14 is made.

11. It was next urged that there would be contradiction between sub-secs. (2) and (3) of sec. 17 on the interpretation which we have given. It is enough to say that we do not see any contradiction. Sub sec. (2) deals with the situation after the oath of office has been taken by a member and he has begun functioning, while sub-sec. (3) deals with the situation before the oath of office is taken and before the member begins functioning. The two sub-sections deal with two different matters and the interpretation we have put on sec. 15 does not, in our opinion, lead to any contradiction or anomaly.

12. Lastly, it was urged that R. 18 enjoins on the Chief Panchayat Officer to notify the names of the Panchas etc. as soon as possible, after he receives the report of the Returning Officer, Sec. 15 also provides for oath of office being taken as soon as possible after the election. Therefore, the intention of the legislature must have been that the oath of office under sec. 15 should be taken after the notification under sec. 14. We cannot see how this inference can be drawn because R. 18 also provides that the Chief Panchayat Officer shall notify the result of the election as soon as possible after he gets the report of the Returning Officer. The rule cannot control the section and if the Tehsildar who has the power to administer oath under R. 47, does so immediately after the election is over, there is nothing, in our opinion, in sec. 15 which prevents him from doing so, He is not bound to wait, in view of the words of sec. 15, for the notification of the Chief Panchayat Officer Howsoever, therefore, we look at s. 15, we are of opinion that we must give effect to its plain words and in so doing, we are not creating any anomalies. We, therefore, hold that though s. 14 is mandatory for certain purposes, it cannot be read to lay down that until a notification thereunder is made, the Panchayat cannot come into existence. We are further of opinion that it is sec. 15 which lays down when a Panchayat comes into existence and that a notification under sec. 14 is not the sine qua non without which the Panchayat cannot come into existence.

13. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the Tehsildar administered the oath of office to the Sarpanch and Panchas on the 9th of December 1955. Thereafter, there were a number of meetings of the Panchayat from the 30th of January, 1956 to the 21st of May, 1956. The number of these meetings was more than live. The applicant was continuously absent from these meetings. Even if he was in jail, he could have sent information to the Panchayat through the Jail and that would have saved his seat from becoming vacant under sec. 17(2). He did nothing of the kind. In these circumstances, he had incurred the disqualification under sec. 37(2) even before the 16th June, 1956 when the notification under sec. 14 was published. In these circumstances, the by election was rightly ordered to be held.

14. There is no force; in this petition and it is hereby dismissed; but in view of the circumstances, we pass no order as to costs.