( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunda, district Partabgarh, dismissing an election petition. Maha-deo and nine others are the petitioners in this petition. Sumer Chand is the principal opposite party. Faruq, petitioner No. 8, has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to Faruqs affidavit, election was held for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha nen-dura. There were two candidates for the Office. They are Sumer Chand and Sajjad Husain, who are opposite parties 2 and 3 in the writ petition. Sumer Chand was declared elected as pradhan.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed an election petition challenging Sumer Chands election. The main ground in the election petition was that, Sumer Chands age was below 30 years. There were also other irregularities alleged by the petitioners. The election petition was heard by the learned sub-Divisional Officer Kunda, district Partabgarh. He held that Sumer Chands age was above 30 years. The election petition was therefore dismissed on 22-6-1956. The ten petitioners have now challenged that judgment dated 22-6-1956.

( 4 ) THE election Tribunal framed as many as five issues. Issue No. 1 related to Sumer Chands age. Issue Nos. 2 to 5 related to alleged-irregularities in the election. The Tribunal recorded its finding on issue No. 1 that, Sumer Chands age is above 30 years. Upon this finding the election petition was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE first contention of the petitioners is that the election Tribunal did not refer to the petitioners evidence on issue Nos. 2 to 5. It is said that the petitioners brought a number of witnesses in support of the allegations about irregularities. But their statements were not recorded. The Tribunal remarked that the only issue of disqualification will be decided. This allegation is contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit.

( 6 ) SUMER Chand filed a counter-affidavit. The contents of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit have been denied in the counter-affidavit. According to the counter-affidavit, whatever witnesses and evidence the applicants wanted to produce, they were allowed to produce, and no evidence was shut out.

( 7 ) AFTER quoting the five issues the Tribunal observed in its judgment :-

"in this case the main issue to be decided is whether opposite party is below 30 years of age. The rest of the issues were not pressed nor evidence worth the name has been produced to support them. "

( 8 ) THE Tribunal recorded a good deal of evidence on issue No. 1. There was no good reason why the Tribunal should have refused to receive evidence on issue Nos. 2 to 5, having recorded evidence on issue No. 1. The allegations of the petitioners contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit do not appear to be true.

( 9 ) NEXT it was urged for the petitioners that, it has not been proved that Sumer Chands age was above 30 years. It was argued that the Tribunal acted upon inadmissible evidence. This contention. is based on the assumption that, the Indian Evidence Act applies to proceedings before the election Tribunals.

( 10 ) CHAPTER I-F of U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules deals with election petitions. Under Rule 24 an election petition has to be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer. According to Rule 25, the code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the hearing of such an election petition. It is not mentioned in this chapter on election petitions whether the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the hearing of election petitions.

( 11 ) ACCORDING to Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Act applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court. It is not mentioned in that section that the Act applies to proceedings before all Tribunals. In bharat Bank Ltd. v. The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi," AIR 1950 SC 188 (A), it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, that the functions and the dutie