BRIJ NARAYAN YADAV Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Article 226 of the CoDStitutiori of India is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Ballia, dated 26th September, 1986, allowing the appeal of respondent no. 2 and setting aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer Bansdih, Ballia) dated 18th December, 1985, dismissing the election petition filed by respondent no. 2 questioning the election of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Sabha Gangahara in the election held in June, 1982.

(2.) THE electoral rolls of the Gaon Sabha Gangahara were published on 2nd January, 1982. THEreafter a time schedule for the purposes of the holding of the election of the office of Pradhan of the said Gaon Sabha was fixed and notified. THE last date for filing the nomination was 12th May. May 13, was the date fixed for scrutiny and the election was scheduled to be held on 3rd June. THE completion of the election took place on 5th June when the result of the election was declared and the petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Gangahara.

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 2 questioned the election of the petitioner basically on the ground that the result of election had been materially affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) inasmuch as the Electoral Registration Officer, who was entrusted with the obligation of maintaining the correct and legal electoral roll, interpolated the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha in question by illegally ordering the deletion of the names of 116 voters in contravention of the provisions contained in the first and second provisos to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act. This contention of respondent no. 2 did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority and as such he dismissed the election petition of respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner filed a revision under section 12-C (6) of the Act. This revision was heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge, Ballia, by means of his judgment and order impugned in the instant writ petition. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the deletion of the names of 116 voters from the voters list was made in violation of the two provisos to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act which resulted in gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and such a failure affected the result of the election materially.