V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) THIS petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Gunnaur rejecting an election petition. In the beginning of the year 1956, election was held for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Nadrauli, district Budaun. There were three candidates. They were Gajram Singh Petitioner, and Gauti Sahai and Makundi, opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. Nominations were filed on 17 -3 -1956. Election was held on 31 -3 -1956. Gauri Sahai was declared elected.
(2.) GAJRAM Singh filed an election petition challenging Gauri Sahai's election. The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Gannaur rejected the election petition on 20 -4 -1956. Gajram Singh has filed the present writ petition for getting that order dated 20 -4 -1956 quashed. The order dated 20 -4 -1956 is brief. In that order the learned Sub Divisional Officer observed thus: I have heard the counsel and gone through the allegations put forth by the Petitioner. The election was conducted under my own presence, and no illegality as alleged by the Petitioner was committed during election. So to say, it was the most fair election, and I find no substance in the allegations of the Petitioner. I, therefore, reject the petition u/R. 25 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Act.
(3.) IT will be noticed that the election petition was rejected u/R. 25 (1) UP Panchayat Raj Rules. R. 25 (1) Lays(sic) down the broad principle that, the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the trial of election petitions. R. 25 (1) contains eight provisos. Proviso (i) is important in the present case Proviso (i) runs thus: The Sub Divisional Officer may hear the Petitioner or his counsel and, if he finds that the petition has no substance, reject the same without the issue of any notice to the opposite parties.;