Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS petition is at the instance of a Pradhan resident of village Ruhailki Dayalpur, Pargana Block and Post Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee district Saharanpur. He challenges two orders, one of the Prescribed! Authority dated 15 December, 1986 and a subsequent order of the lVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, dated 6 March, 1987 in revision, by which, in effect the election of the petitioner as Pradhan has been set aside. Two issues were raised in the election petition filed by the respondent no. 3, Hukam Singh. The first issue was whether the votes cast which ought not to have been included, were counted to declare the petitioner elected as Pradhan. The second issue was that the petitioner did not have the status to hold the office of a Pradhan as he has not attended the age of 30 years. The qualification of age has been prescribed under section 5-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. If the second issue, as determined, by the two courts below is upheld then the election of the petitioner as a Pradhan has rightly been set aside. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner are in reference to his age when he sought election as a Pradhan. The other issue has not been debated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, unfortunately did not take recourse to refer to the two impugned orders and has submitted more law without the facts, in reference to the context.
(3.) THERE has been a discrepancy in the age as had been declared on behalf of the petitioner and thus, the issue whether he was qualified to hold the office of a Pradhan on the date when he filed his nomination for seeking this office. It is the contention of the respondent No. 3 that as on the date when the nomination paper was submitted the petitioner was less than 30 years of age. The entire facts had been seen thread-bare by the Prescribed Authority who held by an order of 15 December, 1986 that the petitioner did not have the requisite age of 30 years as has been stipulated under section 5-B, aforesaid. Thus, from very inception he did not have the qualification to hold the office. The election was basically set aside on this ground The issue of age was debated before the two courts below. The learned District Judge has examined every aspect of the matter which was debated before the Prescribed Authority. The respondent placed the record before the Prescribed Authority to show that at the time when the uncle of the petitioner had been declared a guardian by the court of the District Judge in a case registered as No. 52 of 1960, the age of the petitioner was declared as seven years. The petitioner has a brother. At the relevant time his brother's age was set as 9 years The uncle was appointed guardian for both The guardian at that relevant time was in the best position to know of the age of the petitioner.;