Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This reference has been placed before us under orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice arising out of a writ petition assailing an order of recount of votes passed by the Prescribed Authority while hearing an election application under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). The objection raised by the respondents in the writ petition was to the effect that the petitioner had a remedy of filing a revision under sub-section (6) of Section 12-C of the Act against the impugned order and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents relied on the decision of Abrar v. State of U.P. and others, (2004) 5 AWC 4088 to contend that the nature of the order impugned amounted to disposing of the matter which is final in nature and, therefore, a revision would lie under sub-section (6) of Section 12-C of the Act. The petitioner before us contended that in view of the four decisions relied on by them, a revision would not be maintainable and the objection raised by the respondents deserved to be overruled and the writ petition be entertained.

2. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition pointed out the conflict in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Abrar’s case (supra) with that of the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and framed the following questions to be answered by a larger Bench :

(I) Whether the revision under Section 12-C (6) shall lie only against a final order passed by Prescribed Authority deciding the election petition under Section 12-C(1) or a writ petition can be filed against an order of recount, which has been passed after deciding certain issues raised in the election petition?

(II) Whether the judgment of learned Single Judge in 2004 (5) AWC 4088; Abrar v. State of U.P. and others, lays down correct law?

3. The answer of question No. 1 would, therefore, consequently be an answer to the question No. 2 as well. In order to appreciate the issue of reference, we would like to refer to the genesis of the dispute as contained in the order impugned in the writ petition dated 29.1.2007. The petitioner is the elected candidate to the office of Gram Pradhan having defeated the respondent No. 4 Ashok Kumar and other contestants. The margin of votes between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was only 8 votes. The respondent No. 4 questioned the election under Section 12-C of the Act by filing an election application primarily on the allegations that there was a material irregularity in the counting of votes materially affecting the result of the election. For this purpose and for the purposes of questions raised in the present writ petition, suffice is to mention that the allegations were to the effect that the candidates had been orally informed at the time of election by the Returning Officer that 1261 votes had been polled whereas at the time of counting, only 1249 ballots were found and secondly during the counting, five invalid votes have been illegally counted in favour of the elected candidate, i.e. petitioner and three valid votes of the respondent No. 4 had been wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner. The said application has been disposed of by the impugned order by recording certain reasons which, according to the petitioner, cannot form the basis of recounting.

4. The learned Single Judge while making the reference, has opined that the question raised are serious issues pertaining to the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority under the Act and noticing the conflict, as pointed out hereinabove, the reference has been made for resolving the same.

5. The provisions of Section 12-C (1) and (6) of the Act are quoted below for ready reference :

“12-C. Application for questioning the election.—(1) The election of a person as Pradhan or as member of a Gram Panchayat including the elect