Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) These two special appeals raise inter-related questions. That is why we propose to decide them by a common judgment.
(2.) Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants. Thakur Prasad Singh, the appellant in special appeal No. 204 of 1973 had challenged the order of the Director of Elections (Local Bodies) setting aside his election to the office of Pramukli of the Kshetra Samiti, Tanda. Vidya Pal Singh, the appellant in special appeal No. 241 of 1973 had challenged the order passed by the Director requiring the Returning Officer to recount the votes on the finding that the counting done earlier and the consequent declaration of Vidya Singh as the elected candidate were incorrect.
(3.) In the writ petitions the impugned order of the Director were challenged on the following grounds : (1) that rule 4(5) of the relevant election rules was ultra vires the rule-making power of the State Govern (2) rule 4(5) violated Art. 14 of the Constitution; (3) rule 4(5) was void because it was repugnant to rule 35; and (4) the impugned order of the Director violated the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge did not find substance in any of these submissions and dismissed both the writ petitions. Mr. Khare, and Mr. Chaudhary learned counsel for the appellants submitted that : (I) rule 4(5) was ultra vires the powers of the rule-making authority and (2) rule 4(5) violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.;