RAM AUTAR Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SITAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for K. S. Varma, J.):-This petition has been filed to challenge the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act for the election of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Saraiya Ojhipur. The election was upheld. Two persons filed nominations. One was Ram Autar the petitioner and the other was Mahabir, respondent no. 3. Nomination of Mahabir was rejected and Ram Autar was declared elected. Mahabir filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act challenging the election on the ground that his Domination paper had been improperly rejected.

(2.) SECTION 11-B of the Act provides for the election of a Pradhan. According to sub-section (1) of Sec. 11-B the Pradhan has to be elected by the members of the Gaon Sabha from amongst themselves in such manner as may be prescribed. According to the Rules framed under the Act, the District Magistrate has to supervise the conduct of elections subject to the control of Nirvachan Nirdeshak Panchayat. For each Sabha there has to be a Nirvachan Adhikari (Returning Officer) who shall be such officer of Government as the District Magistrate may designate or nominate. Sahayak Nirvachan Adhikari with equal powers can be appointed by the District Magistrate under SECTION 11-C of the Act. The Tribunal hearing the petition under SECTION 12-C of the Act found that the District Magistrate had appointed Block Development Officer, Aliya as Nirvachan Adhikari and he in turn appointed one Lata Ram Saxena, Sahayak Vikas Adhikari, as Sahayak Nirvachan Adhikari. He was the person who received the nomination papers and found that the nomination paper of respondent no. 3 could not be accepted as he was a disqualified person within the meaning of SECTION 5-A of the Panchayat Raj Act as he was in arrears of some 'tax, fee or rate' due by him to the Gaon Sabha for the period prescribed. The Tribunal held that because Data Ram Saxena had not been appointed by the District Magistrate as contemplated by Rule 16-C he had not the authority either to accept or reject the nomination papers. After this finding he did not proceed to decide the main issue in the case as to whether the nomination paper of respondent no. 3 was improperly rejected or not. He held that because the nomination papers had not been received by the proper authority, they must be held to have been wrongly accepted and rejected. On this basis, he set aside the election and directed a fresh election.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in the election petition is quashed and he is directed to readmit the election petition and decide it afresh in the light of the observations made above. Costs on parties.