(1.) Inability to write, whether due to illiteracy or to physical infirmity, is not a disqualification for membership of a Panchayat and all that S.8 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 which provides for the nomination (in the sense of appointment, not in the sense of nomination to an election) of women to Panchayats requires is that the candidate concerned should be qualified to be a member of the Panchayat. That being so, the words, "written and signed" in R.6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Nomination of Women by the Panchayats) Rules, 1964 which requires that a proposal for nomination should be supported by a letter of consent from the candidate concerned can only mean, "in writing, signed." The learned Munsiff was therefore clearly in error in setting aside the nomination of the petitioner on the score that, although her letter of consent was signed by her, the body of the letter was not writted by her. The Munsiff was however right in holding that the President had improperly rejected the proposal of the 2nd respondent for nomination. The ground on which the President rejected that proposal was that the proposing and seconding required by R.5 was made on the same paper as the letter of consent. This is obviously unsustainable since there is nothing in the rules prohibiting this and there is no reason whatsoever why, following the usual practice at elections, the proposal and the declaration of consent should not be on the same paper. It follows then that although the learned Munsiff was right in setting aside the nomination of the petitioner, the reason she gave for that was patently wrong in law. The setting aside should have been on the ground that the proposal of the 2nd respondent for nomination was improperly rejected, not on the ground that the proposal of the petitioner was improperly accepted. It follows also that the learned Munsiff made a patent error of law in declaring the 2nd respondent duly nominated, for there were two duly proposed and seconded candidates in the field, namely, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the Panchayat had not pronounced between them. It also seems to me extremely doubtful whether, having regard to the provisions of S.22 of the Act and of the Decision of Election Disputes Rules, the learned Munsiff had the power to declare the 2nd respondent duly elected even if she was right in holding that the acceptance of the proposal of the petitioner was improper.
(2.) In the result, the order of the learned Munsiff is affirmed in so far as it sets aside the nomination of the petitioner but it is quashed in so far as it declares the 2nd respondent duly nominated. The position then is, as I have already indicated, that there are two duly proposed and seconded candidates, namely, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent as between whom the Panchayat must choose at a meeting duly reconvened for the purpose.
(3.) I make no order as to costs.