JUDGMENT

K.B. Asthana, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution one Sat Narain who had been elected the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha of village Khain has brought up an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Karchhana dated 31-8-1961 setting aside his election and declaring the scat vacant on an election petition filed by Brij Dhari, respondent No. 2, one of the defeated candidates, for being quashed by a writ of certiorari. It appears that 21-12-1960 was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The petitioner along with respondents numbers 2, 3 and 4 to this writ were nominated for the election and their nominations were duly scrutinised and held proper. The election was held on 25-1-1961, The petitioner secured 383 votes, Brij Dhari respondent No, 2 secured 321 votes, Chhotey Lal respondent No. 3 secured 104 votes and Brij Mohan respondent No. 4 secured 11 votes. The petitioner who had secured the largest number of votes was duly declared elected. Brij Dhari respondent No. 2 then filed a petition questioning the election of the petitioner on the main ground that the petitioner was in arrears of payment of tax due to Sabha and was disqualified from being nominated as a candidate in the election and that the polling for the election was originally fixed and announced for 26th January 1961 but later on it was changed to 25th January 1961 with out giving the change of date due publicity and thus the election was materially affected.

2. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer of Karchana who tried the election petition on the evidence before him found that the petitioner was not qualified to be nominated as he was in arrears in accordance with the rules on the date of the nomination and further he found that the election was affected due to the change in the date which change was not properly publicised. Being aggrieved the petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for quashing of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer are vitiated and his order based thereon deserves to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The first submission of the learned counsel was that the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer that there was a rule prescribing the period as contemplated by Cl. (e) of Sec 5-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter called the Act), is erroneous inasmuch as Rule 15 of the Panchayat Raj Rules which has been relied upon does not fix any period as contemplated under this section. The submission then proceeded that there being no rule prescribed as contemplated in clause (e) in Section 5-A of the Act, any candidate in arrears of tax could not be disqualified for being chosen, nominated or appointed to and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha and the election of the petitioner on that ground could not be set aside. I do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel. Rule 15 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, in my opinion, prescribes a period as contemplated under Cl. (e) of Section 5-A of the Act. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 lays down that a person shall be disqualified under Cl. (e) of Section 5-A of the Act for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat, or the Nyaya Panchayat if lie is in arrears in tax, fee or rate due by him to the Gaon Sabha on the 31st day of March in the year immediately preceding the year in which an election was held. The language of the rule clearly shows that whatever amount is in arrears on 31st day of March in the year immediately preceding the year in which the election was held-in the instant case 31st March 1960--if it remained in arrears, that is, unpaid, till the date of the nomination, the disqualification would be incurred. Thus the rule prescribes the period during which any person would remain in arrears, that is, from Ist April till the date of the