Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of mandamus toe issued directing the opposite parties not to hold any fresh poll for the election of Pradhan, of Gaon Sabha Ganaura, district Mirzapur.
(2.) The facts which are alleged in the affidavit and which have been substantially admitted by the opposite party No. 3 are that the Gaon Sabha Ganaura consists of Sheopura, Sihauli, Ramgarhwa and Ganaura. The elections for the various offices of the Gaon Sabha were held on the 29th of December, 1955. The petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 Bhaggar Prasad were the two duly nominated contestants for the election of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The polling-took place at four different polling booths and different Polling Officers were appointed. The Parties' agents were present at the various polling booths and on the 31st of December, 1955, the polling returns were verified by the Returning Officer and the petitioner was duly declared elected as the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. It appears that subsequently fresh elections were ordered to take place on the 18th of January, 1956. On these facts the present petition was filed in this Court in which it is prayed that a mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 not to hold fresh elections.
(3.) Notices were issued to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 in which it is admitted that the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were the two duly nominated candidates for the office of the Pradhan. The election did take place on the 30th of December, 1955, but, according to the opposite party No. 3, no proper counting was done on that day. The votes polled in favour of opposite party No. 3 were not counted by the Presiding Officer properly and an incorrect return was submitted by him to the Returning Officer in which he showed that the petitioner had obtained a larger number of votes than that of opposite party No. 3. An application was made by opposite party No. 3 to the Returning Officer who made a spot enquiry and came to the conclusion that the counting was not properly done and therefore in the exercise of his powers under Rule 19-F of the Rules framed under the Act he declared the election void and directed that fresh elections should take place. The opposite party No. 3 in the counter-affidavit has said that in fact the application made by him on the 30th of December, 1955, was itself in the nature of an election petition on which the spot enquiry was made on the 4th of January, 1956, and the District Returning Officer declared the election void. Having declared the election void under Rule 19-F the necessary consequence was that under Sub-clause. (2) of the said rule a fresh election has to be fixed and thereupon the 18th of January, 1956, was fixed for the fresh election.;