S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer Chunar dated 13th March, 1956 rejecting an application of the petitioners for permission to amend their election petition filed under Sec. 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioners have alleged in the affidavit supporting the petition that they are electors in the register of the members Part II of the Gaon Sabha, Bagaha, district Mirzapur. A general election took place in the Gaon Sabha on 18-12-55 for the purpose of electing the Pradhan and the members of the Gaon Sabha. Har Naresh Singh, respondent no. 2 was elected as Pradhan and Amarjeet Singh and others, respondent no. 3 to 25 as members of the Gaon Panchayat. The petitioners filed an election petition under Sec. 12 (c) of the aforesaid Act read with Rule 24 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, challenging the election of the respondent Hamaresh Singh as Pradhan and of the respondents 3 to 25 as members. This petition was filed before the S.D.O. Chunar, respondent no. 1 in the present petition. Notices were issued to the persons cited as respondents in the election petition. At the time of the hearing a preliminary objection was raised that the petition was not maintainable, being a composite petition challenging the validity of several elections - that of the Pradhan and also of 23 others as members. It was also pointed out that only one security had been deposited. The preliminary objection was considered by the S.D.O. on 13th March, 1956. On that date the present petitioners made an application for permission to amend the election petition by withdrawing the relief against the Pradhan and removing him from the array of the respondents. The petition was moved because the S.D.O. gave expression to the view that the election of the Pradhan and the members could not be rolled up into one relief in a composite petition. After hearing both sides the S.D.O. disallowed the application for amendment and dismissed the election petition itself. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing it.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous because it is based on the finding that two elections could not be challenged by a single petition and that a chalan of the value of Rs. 10 should have been filed. Learned counsel however contended that the petitioners had not challenged the election of a particular person but the entire election itself. The fairness of the regularity of the entire election proceedings had been impugned in the petition. He also submitted that the election petition under Sec. 12 (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is not directed against a particular person but against the entire election proceedings, though the incidental result of the success of such a petition must be that a particular person or persons election is set aside. I am afraid I am unable to accept this interpretation of Sec. 12(c).
(3.) That section provides that "the election of a person as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or as member of Gaon Panchayat shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. This section has to be read with Rule 24 of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Sub-rule 1 of this Rule is as follows: "An application - shall be presented before the S.D.O. and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds: Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a treasury chalan to show that the amount of Rs. 5 has been deposited in the personal ledger of the Sabha concerned as security.";