JUDGMENT

M.C. Desai, C.J. - The sole question raised in this petition is whether opposite party No. 2, who was in arrears of tax due by him to the Gaon Sabha of village Ram Rurha, was on that ground disqualified from being nominated for holding the office of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha of village Matua Sauraiya under Sec. 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination of opposite party No. 2 holding that he was disqualified and the petitioner, who was the only other candidate nominated, was declared elected unopposed. The opposite party filed an election petition challenging the petitioner's election and it was dismissed on the ground hat the opposite party was disqualified; the election Tribunal did not go into other matters because the petition challenging the election implies on the ground of disqualification was bound to fail. The opposite party applied for certiorari for the quashing of the order of the Election tribunal and the application was granted by our brother Sharma, who held that the opposite party was not disqualified for being in arrears of a tax due to another Gaon Sabha. He remanded the case in the tribunal for hearing the petition on other matters. Now the election tribunal has allowed the petition of the opposite party and declared the election of the petitioner null and void. Hence this petition.

2. The view taken by our learned brother is that the disqualification contemplated by Sec. 5-A is in respect of arrears of a tax due to the Gaon Sabha for holding office in which the person is to be nominated, the opposite party sought nomination for holding the office of Pradhan in the Gaon Sabha of Matua Sauraiya and he was not in arrears of any tax due to that Gaon Sabha. It did not matter if he was in arrears of a tax due to another Gaon Sabha. The words used in Sec. 5-A(e) are "to the Gaon Sabha" meaning that it is the Gaon Sabha for holding the office in which the person is to be nominated. The article "the" identifies the Gaon Sabha to which the arrears are due with the Gaon Sabha for holding the office in which the person is to be nominated. It stands to reason also that a person should be disqualified for holding an office in a Gaon Sabha if he is in arrears of any tax due to that Gaon Sabha; there is no reason whey he should be disqualified for being in arrears of any tax due to any other Gaon Sabha. If he is to be disqualified for being in arrears of any tax there is no justification for distinguishing between a tax due to that Gaon Sabha and a tax due to the Government or any local authority or between a tax and any other dues. There is also no reason why a person should be disqualified for being in arrears of a tax due to any Gaon Sabha wherever situated, whether in any other state or even in any other country. We, therefore, respectfully agree with our learned brother that the opposite party was not disqualified.

3. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the decision of our learned brother before us in a petition against the order of the election tribunal. If he was aggrieved by it, his remedy was to file an appeal in the Supreme Court under Article 136.

4. In the result we dismiss the petition summarily.

Petition dismissed.