SHEO BARAN Vs. BINDESHWARI PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the legality of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tanda allowing the election petition under Section 12(c) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. In 1961 there was an election held for the office of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Baskhari in the District of Faizabad. The petitioner Sheo Baran was not a candidate but only a voter. The rival candidates were the first and the second respondents Bindeshwari Prasad and Dudhnath. Bindeshwari Prasad was elected. Dudhnath filed a petition challenging the election of the winner on the ground that he was holding an office of profit under the Government at, the tune of his nomination and, therefore, disqualified for election. Dudhnath prayed that the election of Bindeshwari Prasad be set aside, and further that he be elected as the sole candidate after the rejection of Bindeshwari Prasad's nomination papers. Bindeshwari Prasad contested the petition and filed a written objection in which he denied that he held any office of profit under the Government. In his evidence before the tribunal, he admitted that he was employed as a temporary mate in tha P. W,D. department on a daily wage. It appears from the record that the parties compromised their dispute and Bindeshwari Prasad conceded that he held an office of profit and was, therefore, not entitled to contest the election. The parties filed a joint application before the tribunal praying that the election petition be allowed and the parties directed to bear their own costs.

(2.) The Sub-Divisional Officer in his order allowing the petition found that Bindeshwari Prasad held an office of profit under the Government and was, therefore, disqualified for election. He also held that Dudhnath being the only surviving candidate after Bindeshwari Prasad was disqualified, was entitled to be declared elected. Accordingly, be allowed the petition, set aside the election of Bindeshwari Prasad and declared Dudhnath elected for the post of Pradhan. Aggrieved by this order Sheo Baran has come to this Court for a relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) As stated above, Sheo Baran has no direct interest in the election, but I think he is entitled to move the Court as a voter interested in the result of the election and its propriety. The petitioner's case is that parties cannot decide the result of election by private compromise and there-by deprive the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Sub Divisional Officer should not have given effect to the compromise as an election petition is not like a civil suit in, which a compromise decree can be passed on the application of the parties. The learned counsel submitted that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is wholly without jurisdiction.