S.Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) ON 8-7-1982 we had passed the following order- "For the reasons to be stated hereafter, the petition fails and is dismissed." We now proceed to give the reasons.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that in the district of Lucknow there is a Gram Sabha Achli Khera. THE petitioner is a member of the aforesaid Gram Sabha and in the year 1972 he was elected as its Pradhan. THEre was an election for the office of Pradhan notified to be held on 3-6-1982. THE petitioner filed his nomination papers on 12-5-1982. Two other candidates, who are opposite parties 6 and 7, also filed their nomination papers. THE scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 13-5-82 by the Assistant Returning Officer (Opposite Party no. 5). THE nomination papers of the petitioner was rejected on 13-5-1982 by opposite party no. 5 on the objection of opposite party no. 7 to the effect that the petitioner had already been convicted in two criminal cases under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed appeals in this Court against the orders by which he was convicted and that in those appeals the sentence has been suspended. It is further asserted by the petitioner that he had filed certified copies of the orders dated 22-4-1981 and 24-5-79 before the Assistant Returning Officer and inspite of the aforesaid orders, the latter rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner and thus deprived the petitioner of his valuable rights of contesting the election for the office of Gram Pradhan. THE petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before Election Director, Panchayat Raj, Lucknow (Opposite Party no. 2) under section 12-BB of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act). He also submitted an application for the removal of the so-called disqualification under section 5-A of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer.(Opposite Party no. 3), THEse representations were not disposed of by opposite parties 2 and 3 and in the meantime the election took place on 3-6-82 in which the opposite party no. 6 was declared elected. THE petitioner consequently prayed that the order by which his nomination paper was rejected by opposite party no. 5 be quashed and that a writ in the nature of quo-warranto be issued against opposite party no. 6 and the office of the Gram Pradhan of Village Achli Khera be declared to be vacant. Another prayer has been made that the opposite parties 2 and 3 be directed to dispose of the representation already made by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present writ petition is maintainable inspite of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 12-C of the Act. His contention is that the remedy by way of election petition would not be an appropriate remedy in the peculiar circumstance of the present case and this court should therefore, in its discretion, interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the order by which his nomination paper has been illegally rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer (Opposite Party no.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to canvass before us that the order by which nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected could not have been legally passed by opposite party no. 5, as the petitioner had already been released on bail in the criminal appeals, which he had filed in this court.
(3.) SECTION 12-1 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or any decision given by the officer or authority appointed under this Act in connection with the conduct of elections thereunder. Sub-section (1) of SECTION 12-C provides as under : "12-C(1). The election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or as member of a Gaon Sabha Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time in such manner as may be prescribed on|the ground that :- (a) the election has not been a free election by reason that corrupt practice or bribery or undue influence has been extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination ; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder. Sub-section (3) of section 12-C provides that the application under subsection (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election or any electorate and it shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. A person who files the nomination paper at the election, whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. The reliefs which can be granted in an election petition are indicated in sub-section (4) of section 12-C. The authority to whom an application under sub-section (1) may be made may either set aside the election or declare the election to be void or declare the applicant to be duly elected or it may grant any other relief to the applicant. Sub-Section (6) of section 12-C provides that any party aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority upon an application under sub-section (1) may file a revision before the District Judge. Sub-Section (9) provides that the decision of the Prescribed Authority, subject to any order passed by the Revising Authority and every decision of the Revising Authority shall be final.;