Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri S.C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 12 who are proforma respondents.

Facts of the Case

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that in the election for the post of village Pradhan of village Panchayat “Kasidahan”, Block and Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi held in the year 2015, the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and some other persons filed their nominations. The petitioner was declared elected for the post of village Pradhan. The unsuccessful candidate namely the respondent No. 4 filed an Election Petition No. T 2016166704371 of 2016 under Section 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) before the Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 2) which was dismissed by order dated 30.8.2016 holding that during the pendency of recall application in Writ Petition No. 35946 of 2000 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.7.2000 for dues of Rs. 1,83,222.83 under Section 27 of the Act, it is not justified to hold the petitioner to be in arrears incurring disqualification under Section 5-A(1)(e) of the Act and as such the election petition is not maintainable.

3. Aggrieved with this order, the respondent No. 4-election petitioner filed a revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur being Revision No. 48 of 2016 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 11.11.2016. By the aforesaid impugned order, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.8.2016 was set aside and the result of election dated 30.12.2015 for the post of Pradhan of village Panchayat Kasidahan, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi was declared to be null and void and was cancelled.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by learned District Judge, Bhadohi dated 11.11.2016, the petitioner (elected Pradhan) has filed the present writ petition.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:

(i) The Revisional Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction to declare the election of the petitioner as Village Pradhan to be null and void on account of alleged disqualification incurred under Section 5A(e) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority as provided under Section 12C(6) of the Act is when the Prescribed Authority has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or the Prescribed Authority has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. He submits that since the election of the petitioner was not held to be null and void by the Prescribed Authority and as such the impugned order of the Revising Authority declaring the election of the petitioner to be null and void, is wholly without jurisdiction.

(ii) Before filing the nomination a ‘No Dues Certificate’ was issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar concerned and on that basis, the petitioner has filed his nomination and as such it cannot be said that any information was suppressed so as to result in disqualification under Section 5A(e) of the Act.

(iii) The demand created against the petitioner was under Section 27 of the Act, i.e. the surcharge which does not fall within the ambit of Section 5A(e) of the Act inasmuch as the said demand is neither a tax nor a fee nor rate nor any other dues payable by the petitioner to the Gram Panchayat, Kshetra Panchayat or Zila Panchayat.

(iv) The election petition filed by the respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority but the revision has been allowed by the Revising Authority under Section 12C(6) of the Act without recording any finding as to how the result of the election, was materially affected