Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE election to the post of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Dhanora, Tahsil Hapur, district Meerut, was notified to be held under Section 11-B (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The polling was to take place on 28th May, 1972. The appellant as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 9 were the contesting candidates. On 28th May, 1972 all contesting candidates except respondent No. 4 Ram Singh Tyagi filed an application before the Presiding Officer retiring from the election. The Presiding Officer stopped the commencement of the poll and transmitted the application to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer rejected the application on the grounds : (a) that the application did not contain the date and time on which it was given to the Presiding Officer; (b) that the Presiding Officer did not mention that he had stopped the poll as required under Rule 20-KK of the Rules; and (c) that on the application a thumb-impression purporting to be of Prakash has not been attested or verified by the Presiding Officer. Thereupon fresh elections were held on 7th June, 1972. At this election the appellant Prakash obtained highest number of votes and he was duly declared an elected Pradhan.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed an election petition, particularly on the ground that because of the withdrawal of the candidates on 28th May, 1972 he was the only contesting candidate left in the field; so he was entitled to be declared elected. The subsequent polling held on 7th June, 1972 was void and ineffective. The Election Tribunal upheld the validity of the joint application made by the various contesting candidates on 28th May, 1972 and held that respondent No. 4 was entitled to be declared elected as Pradhan. The subsequent polling held on 7th June, 1972 was held to be illegal. On this view the election petition was allowed, the election of the appellant was set aside and respondent No. 4 was declared to be elected Pradhan.
(3.) AGGRIEVED the appellant filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the Election Tribunal had recorded a finding on the testimony of the Returning Officer which is corroborated by the entry in the election diary that at about 7 a.m. in the morning of 28th May, 1972 all the candidates except respondent No. 4 withdrew from the contest. He held that this is a finding of fact and does not suffer from any error of law. On this finding the respondent No. 4 was rightly declared elected. On this view the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.;