( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts are these : the petitioner and respondents Nos. I to 9 were candidates for the office of President of the municipal Board of Sitapur at an election to be held on the 26th October, 1953. They filed their nomination papers on the preceding 5th October. Objection was then taken by the ninth respondent to the nomination of the first respondent on the ground that the latter had not attained the age of thirty years, the qualifying age for election for residents under Section 43 (4) of the municipalities Act, 3916. The Returning Officer thereupon held a summary enquiry under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities (Conduct of Election, of Presidents) Rules 1953, and on the 7th October he rejected the nomination paper of the first respondent. Thereafter respondents Nos. 4 to 9 withdrew their candidatures. The election was accordingly fought between the petitioner and second and third respondents, the petitioner being declared elected.

( 2 ) ON the 12th December, 1953, the first respondent filed an election petition on the ground that his nomination had been improperly rejected. The Election Tribunal recorded evidence with regard to the age of the first respondent and came to the conclusion that the latter had attained the age of thirty years. It was accordingly of opinion that the first respondents nomination paper had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and toy an order dated the 9th December, 1954, it allowed the petition, set aside the election of the petitioner and declared a casual vacancy to exist.

( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed the petition which is now before us. He challenges the validity of the order of the Election Tribunal on three grounds. He says, first, that the rules regarding election petitions against the President of a Municipal Board, known as the Election Petition (Presidents of Municipal Boards) Rules, 1949 are invalid; secondly, in the alternative, that the amendments to those rules which came into force on the 9th November, 1953, had no retrospective effect and, thirdly, that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to arrive at a finding as to the age of the first respondent on the basis of additional evidence recorded by it. It is convenient to consider these submissions in that order.

( 4 ) THE U. P. Municipalities Act 1916 (hereinafter called the Principal Act) was amended by U. P. Act VII of 1949 which came into force on the 22nd June, 1949. By that amending Act a new section, Section 43-B, was inserted in the principal Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provided that no election of the President of a Municipal Board shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of that section, and Sub-section (2), so far as is material, reads as follows :

"42-B (2), An election petition may be presented jointly by ten electors entitled to vote in any ward or by a candidate for Presidentship whose nomination paper has been rejected or who has been defeated at the poll in such manner and on such grounds and within such period as may be prescribed. . . . . . . . . . . . . "

On the 20th June, 1950, the Election Petition (Presidents of Municipal Boards) Rules, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Election Petition Rules) were published. These rules were made under Section 296 (1) of the Principal Act. That subsection provides that"296 (1 ). The State Government shall make rules consistent with this Act in respect of the matters described in Ss 29 43-A, 44-A, 95, 127, 153, 235 and 248. "

"29. The following matters shall be regulated and governed by rule, namely : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) the qualifications of candidates for election; (c) the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and candidate lists; (d) the nomination of candidates; (e) the dates, time and manner of holding elections, general or casual;