JUDGMENT
K.S. Rathore, J.
1. The defect pointed out in SB Civil Writ Petition (def) No. 14/05 is cured by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law, the same are heard and decided by this common order.
3. All these writ petitions are filed against the order dated 22.12.2004 whereby the Collector, Jhunjhunu rejected the appeals of petitioners with regard to deletion of name of respondent No. 4 from the electoral roll of village panchayat Bhojasar and include the names of the petitioners in electoral of village Panchayat Bhojasar.
4. The Collector, Jhunjhunu wide order dated 22.12.2004 rejected all the 20 appeals on the ground that as per Rule 21(2)(a) the appeal memo should be signed by the applicants and the same were not signed by the applicants, therefore, the appeals were rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed that order on the ground that it is not necessary to sign the appeal memo. He also referred the provisions of Rule 14(6), 13 (2) and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short the Rules of 1994). Rule 13 (2) provides that every claim shall be in Form 1 and shall be signed by the persons desiring his name to be included in the electoral roll and Rule14 (6) provides that no persons shall be represented by any legal practitioner in any proceeding under this rule. By referring these clauses, he submits that at the initial stage when the objections duly signed are filed by the petitioner.
6. The appeal shall be in the form of memorandum signed by the applicant, but in Rule 21 there is no specific provision to debar the legal practitioner, therefore, by referring Rule 21, Mr. Balwada demonstrates before this Court that since Vakalatnama is duly signed by the petitioner authorising Advocate to file memorandum of appeal therefore, requirements of Rule 21 (a) is complied with and it is mere technical which the Collector has rejected the 20 appeals and since the legal practitioners are not debarred, therefore, such appeals should be decided.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned by which 20 appeals have been rejected. In view of provision of Rule 21 which provides that memorandum shall be signed by the applicant. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that claimant objection are filed under Rule 13 and as per Sub-rule 2 of Rule 13, every claim shall be in Form 1 and shall be signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the electoral roll and as per provision of Rule 14 (6), no person shall be entertained by legal practitioner in any proceedings under this rule.
8. A bare perusal of Rule 21 reveals that an appeal shall be to the Collector from an order made under Rule 14 or 20 by an electoral registration officer within a period of 15 days from the date of order.
9. It appears that without entering into the merits, the appeals have been dismissed on the ground that memo of appeal is not signed by the applicants as the mandatory provisions have been incorporated in Rule 21 “provided that an appeal shall not lie where a person desiring to appeal has not availed himself of his right to be heard by or to make representation to the electoral registration officer on the matter which is the subject of appeal” And by perusal of the order impugned, it appears that provisions of Sub-clause 2(a) of Rule 21 has not been complied with as it is mandatory that appeal shall be in form of memorandum signed by the applicant. Admittedly all the 20 appeals have not been signed by the applicants. Since the petitioners have not challenged the vires of Rule 21, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be given relaxation to this effect and as has not been pleaded that this provision is ultra vires. Now the question arise where these cases are fit to the remanded back to the Collector for re-hearing on merits, in my considered opinion since the appeals have not been signed under mandatory provision made in Rule 1994, I find no fault in the order impugned passed by the Collector, Jhunjhunu. It is for the petitioner to file memorandum of appeal duly signed as per the mandatory provisions of Rule 21 of the Rule of 1994. In any manner his Court do not want to interfere with the order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Collector, Jhunjhunu and also not inclined to issue any direction. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.