D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Sri L. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) In the election petition filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadabad, district Mathura, calling in question the election of the petitioner as Pradhan, an objection was raised about the maintainability of the election. It appears that the said objection has been repelled and the Sub-Divisional Officer has declined to dismiss the election petition as not maintainable. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge Mathura. The learned Judge has rejected the revision, as not maintainable. This order is under challange in the instant petition. The view taken by the learned Judge is sound. Sub-section (6) of Section 12-C of the U. P. Panehayat Raj Act, 1947 contemplates a revision against an order upon the application under sub-section (1) of Section 12-C of the said Act. Application under Section 15-C(1) of the Act means, the application calling in question the election of the returned candidate as Pradhan. In any case, the order of the Prescribed Authority, holding that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable, would be open to challenge as and when a final order, deciding the election petition against the petitioner, is passed.
(3.) In view of what has been said above this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;