By the Court.—This special appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.8.2013 whereby the writ petition No. 56084 of 2011 filed by Ajay Kumar Gupta was allowed and the order passed by the District Magistrate setting aside the election of Ajay Kumar Gupta was set aside and a direction was given that the petitioner would be reinstated as Pradhan for the remainder of his term.

2. Ajay Kumar Gupta respondent No. 1 in the present special appeal was elected as Gram Pradhan of village Hathin, Block Chhibaramau, District Kannauj. He had contested the election as an OBC candidate claiming that he belongs to the Halwai caste. The appellant alongwith some other persons made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Kannauj alleging that Ajay Kumar Gupta was a general candidate and he had contested the election on a forged caste certificate showing himself as belonging to OBC caste. The District Magistrate issued notice on 25.7.2011 to Ajay Kumar Gupta, in response to which Ajay Kumar Gupta submitted his reply and after considering the reply the District Magistrate by his order dated 27.8.2011 passed an order removing Ajay Kumar Gupta from the post of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question. This order was passed by the District Magistrate, Kannauj in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) (iii-a) read with Section 11-A(2) and Section 12(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said order Ajay Kumar Gupta filed writ petition No. 56084 of 2011. The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 27.8.2011 passed by the District Magistrate was set aside on the ground that the District Magistrate had no power under Section 95(1)(g) (iii-a) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as he has contested the election on a forged caste certificate and his election, therefore, could only be set aside through an election petition. The learned Single Judge relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Hoti Lal v. State of U.P. and another, 2002 (3) AWC 1761. A further direction was given in the writ petition that the petitioner would be reinstated as Pradhan for the remainder of his term.

3. We have heard Shri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who had been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and Shri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri B.R.J. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

4. It has been submitted by Shri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate on 27.8.2011 was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the writ Court since the respondent No. 1 had contested the election of gram Pradhan on a forged certificate showing himself to be belonging to OBC category of Halwai and the order of the District Magistrate was passed under Section 95(1) (g) (iii-a) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was absolutely correct. Shri S.D. Kautilya has referred to the provisions of Section 95(1) (g) (iii-a) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(23) LCD 377, wherein this Court while considering the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95(1) (g) (iii-a) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has held that the petitioner in that writ petition had contested the election on a false caste certificate of OBC and later it was found that he did not belong to the backward class category and since the appointment had been obtained by fraud and fraud vitiates every action, therefore the order of the District Magistrate did not call for any interference. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

5. Shri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal controverting the submission of Shri Kautilya, on the other hand, re