D. Basu, J.@mdashIn this case the Petitioner challenges the validity of the election of the Anchal Panchayat held on June 10, 1964, relating to
Hazipur Achal Panchayat at which he and opposite party No. 6, Gopal Chandra Roy, were rival candidates, and opposite party No. 6 was
eventually elected by a margin of one vote. The Petitioner''s first ground is that the election was not fair inasmuch as opposite party No. 6
physically detained two supporters of the Petitioner beyond the date of the election so that they could not vote in the Petitioner''s favour. Prima
facie, this is a question of fact and a ground which can be urged in an election petition under Rule 30 of the West Bengal Panchayat Rules, 1958.
2. Mr. Dutt on behalf of the Petitioner, however, urges that the remedy by way of election petition under Rule 30 is illusory inasmuch as it fixes a
period of 30 days limitation for the bringing of an election petition in respect of the election to a number of offices such as a membership of Gram
Panchayat or Anchal Panchayat as well as the Adhyaksha or Upadhayksha of Gram Panchayat or Pradhan or Upapradhan of an Anchal
Panchayat. What has happened is that instead of making separate rules in respect of these different offices, Rule 30 has been made a
comprehensive rule relating to all these different offices. This apparently leads to some anomaly, but the dates of declaration of the result of the
offices in the Gram Panchayat and the Anchal Panchayat being different under Rules 22, 23, 24 and 27(6), it does not seem to me that a person
who wants to challenge the election to any of these offices in the Gram Panchayat would be obstructed because of the same period of time being
limited by Rule 30 in the manner urged by Mr. Dutt.
3. The other ground taken in this petition is the same as that in Civil Rule No. 890(W) of 1964, namely, Rule 27 being ultra vires Section 27 of the
Act. Since I have given my reasons in full for rejecting that contention in Civil Rule No. 890 (W) of 1964, the decision made therein may be made
a part of the judgment in the present Rule. Grounds 1 and 2 of the present petition have not been pressed.
4. The Rule is, accordingly, discharged but without any order as to costs.
5. As prayed for by Mr. Dutt the operation of this order will also remain stayed for a period of three weeks from this date.
