S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 7th September, 1983, passed by third Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, in a revision Under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, setting aside the election of the Petitioner, who was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha 81 Grant No. 21 alias Dhakka Chaut, pargana and tahsil Pooranpur, district Pilibhit.
(2.) ON 3rd June, 1982, the Petitioner was declared duly elected to the office of the Pradhan of the above mentioned Gaon Sabha defeating Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Mohammad Hasan, Respondent No. 2, filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority, Pooranpur, Pilibhit, Under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was filed on a number of grounds. One of the grounds taken by Respondent No. 2 was that the Petitioner's name was wrongly included in the Electoral Roll of the said Gaon Sabha and, for that reason, his nomination paper was invalid. The petition was contested by the Petitioner. By an order dated 22nd March, 1983, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pooranpur, Pilibhit, dismissed the election petition. The Prescribed Authority held, inter alia, that no corrupt practice was adopted during the election. The other points raised by the Respondent No. 2 challenging the election were also decided against the Respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority, in particular, held that the Petitioner's name rightly appeared in the Voters' List and that the election could not be challenged on that ground also.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by that decision, a revision was filed Under Section 120(6) of the Act before the District Judge. In revision, the order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged on two grounds, firstly, it was argued that Under Section 12C(7), the Petitioner whose name appeared in the voters list of the Naaar Palika, Pilibhit, could not have been shown as a member of the concerned Gaon Sabha and, as such, he was not competent to contest the election, and, secondly, that the Petitioner had adopted corrupt practice and disturbed the polling booth during the voting.;