G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the orders dated 24-6-97 passed by the prescribed authority and 7-3-98 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ballia.
(2.) THE dispute relates to election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Charwa Barwam which is reserved for a male scheduled caste person. The last date for tiling the nomination papers was 27-3-95 and the election was held in April, 1995. In all, nine persons filed their nomination papers. After the election and counting of votes, the writ petitioner Om Prakash was declared to have been elected as Pradhan as he had secured highest number of votes. Niranjan Das-respondent No. 4 filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of Om Prakash on several grounds and the main ground was that he did not belong to scheduled caste com­munity. The prescribed authority by his order dated 24-6-97 allowed the election petition, set aside the election of Om Prakash and declared the election petitioner Niranjan Das as duly elected Pradhan of Gram Panehayat. The revision preferred by Om Prakash against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge on 7-3-98. It is these orders which are impugned in the present writ petition. Dr. R. G. Padia learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Addl. District Judge did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and did not consider the evidence adduced by the parties and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The power of revision is con­ferred by sub-section (6) of Section 12-C of the Act which reads as follows: "(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the prescribed authority upon an application under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order on any one or more of the following grounds, namely- (a) that the prescribed authority has exer­cised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction to vested; (c)that the prescribed authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
(3.) A bare perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 12-C will show that it is akin to Section 115, C.P.C. The revisional court has very limited jurisdiction and it can interfere only where the prescribed authority has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is not the function of the revisional court to go into the facts after reappraisal of evidence. If the Addi­tional District Judge did not refer to the evidence on record, it cannot be said that he committed any illegality or has violated the provisions of sub-section (6) of Sec­tion 12-C of the Act. The learned counsel has failed to point out as to how the order of the prescribed authority suffered from any error of jurisdiction which would war­rant interference by the revisional court. Therefore, the contention raised by Dr. R.G. Padia has no substance.;