Palok Basu - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Ruber Nath Tiwari challenging the order dated 4-9-1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority as upheld in the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, Ballia on 8-9-1992 whereby the election petition filed by the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyay was allowed.
(2.) IT appears that the election for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha of village Sarainya, P. O. Koranta Dih, Pargana Garha. district Ballia, took place on 1-7-1988 in which Narendra Nath Upadhyay was one of the candidates IT is admitted that out of 884 valid votes, petitioner Kuber nath Tiwari obtained 483 votes and Narendra Nath Upadhyaya got 426 votes, while 72 votes were declared invalid and 3 votes were found missing. Therefore, in the result declared by the Returning Officer on 2-7-1988 the petitioner was said to be elected as Pradhan Narendra Nath Upadhyaya filed an election petition on 9-7-1988 under section 12-C read with Rule 25 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short the Act). Apart from the other grounds basic allegation en behalf of Narendra Nath Upadhyaya was that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age, and, therefore, as per the mandate laid down in section 5-A of the Act, he could not have been elected as Pradhan and his nomination ought to have been rejected. Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. S. Audichya, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyaya and Shri Ran Vijai Singh, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State have been heard at length.
(3.) WHEN this writ petition was filed, it appeared desirable to summon the original record of the election petition as well as the revision. Both are available. Since the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyaya opposed the admission of the writ petition, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 bad been granted time to file a counter affidavit. That "having been filed, rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner was also filed. So far as the Standing Counsel is concerned, he has supported the order and nothing is to be added at the behest of the Standing Counsel. The writ petition was accordingly heard finally at the admission stage/and is being disposed of accordingly. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the only point for determination before the Prescribed Authority as well as in the revision were and also In this writ petition is whether the petitioner Kuber Nath Tiwari was 30 years of age on the date he filed his nomination or not. Both the authorities after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, have held that the case set up by Narendra Nath Upadhyaya was fully proved and Kuber Nath Tiwari was not of 30 years of age as envisaged by section 5-A of the Act and, therefore, the election petition was allowed.;