The District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Returning Officer to reopen the election process after the result had been declared and the petitioner had been issued a certificate of election.

( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the declaration of the result of the election held for the office of the Pradhan of village Sheopur Bujurg, tehsil Padrauna, district Kushinagar declaring respondent No. 4 as the elected candidate. The contention of the petitioner is that he was originally declared elected. The counting of votes took place on 28/06/2000 and after completion of counting of votes result was declared which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. When called upon by the Court the petitioner has also produced certificate issued by the Returning Officer declaring the petitioner as elected candidate in respect of village Sheopur Bujurg, tehsil Padrauna, district Kushinagar. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequent to the declaration of result and issuance of the certificate on the same date, i. e. 28/06/2000, a complaint was lodged by respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, which is stated to be of 30/06/2000, Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. On the basis of the said complaint the District Magistrate passed an order dt. 3/07/2000, whereby he cancelled the declaration of result made on 28/06/2000 in respect of the petitioner and directed the Returning Officer to declare respondent No. 4, as duly elected. Pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate, another declaration was made by the Returning Officer whereby he declared respondent No. 4 as duly elected on 6/07/2000.

( 2 ) ). The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether after the declaration of result and issuance of certificate the District Magistrate has any authority to reopen the election process and direct the Returning Officer for afresh declaration of the result. It is also required to be considered in this connection that thereturning Officer, who is for the purpose of holding election, can cancel his declaration once made declaring the duly elected candidate and again declare the result pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate.

( 3 ) ). The contention of the learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 is that there appeared serious discrepancy in the counting process and the chart, which was relied upon for the counting, was made on the basis of the forged documents. He referred to S. 12-BC of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and submitted that the District Magistrate has supervisory power over the election and, as such, the District Magistrate was quite within his powers to cancel the election of the petitioner and direct the Returning Officer to declare the election result again.

( 4 ) ). We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties. In our view, S. 12-BC refers to other provisions relating to holding of elections. It is no doubt true that the District Magistrate has supervisory power over the conduct of elections of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and the members of Gram Panchayats in the district, but once the election result is declared and certificate issued, election process is complete and S. 12-C immediately comes into play.

( 5 ) ). S. 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides for application to be made for questioning the elections. If there was any forged document relied in the process of counting that really amounts to irregularity in the counting process, the proper remedy for the respondent No. 4 is to challenge the same by way of filing an election petition.

( 6 ) ). We have heard learned standing counsel, who has also submitted that the supervisory power of the District Magistrate has not ended in the instant case in view of the fact that the election process has not ended by mere declaration of election result on 28/06/2000 and the Returning Officer has not become functus officio thereby. According to the learned standing counsel the election process is only completed when the report is sent to the District Magistrate and thereafter to the State Election Commission. In this connection he has