Point of Law : Section 11B of the Act provides for election of Pradhan. Section 11D of the Act makes certain further prohibitions in respect of the persons who are seeking election as a Pradhan.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate assisted by Shri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devansh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed alleging that respondent no.5 has been illegally elected as Gram Pradhan. It is stated that notification for holding election of Gram Pradhans in the State of U.P. was issued by the Election Commission in the year 2021 fixing various dates for the proposed election. The election was scheduled to be held on 19.04.2021. It is stated that the petitioner as well as other contesting candidates filed their nominations for election of Gram Panchayat - Poore Dhadhu. Respondent no.5 also filed his nomination for contesting the election of Gram Panchayat on 07.04.2021. The said application was appended with an affidavit dated 06.04.2021 wherein respondent no.5 had indicated his age as 21 years, however, as per the school records, the date of birth of respondent no.5 is 14.09.2000 and thus, respondent no.5 was not aged 21 years on the date of election, however, the nomination of respondent no.5 was accepted by Assistant District Election Officer.

3. It is further on record that the petitioner and 12 other candidates contested the election and respondent no.5 was declared elected. In short, the submission is that respondent no.5 could not have participated in the election as he was under age and thus, his election was bad in law. It is argued that the acceptance of his nomination form was clearly erroneous.

4. The present petition has been filed with the following two prayers:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to declare the election of the opposite party no.5 for the post of Gram Pradhan Gram Panchayat - Poore Dhadhu held on 19.04.2021 is void ab initio as the opposite party no.5 was disqualified.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 & 3 to refer the objection/application filed by the petitioner U/S 5-A, 9-A, red with Article 243-F of the Constitution of India Us 6-A to the prescribed authority for disposal of the same. Further directions are to be issued to the opposite party no.4 who is the prescribed authority for taking decision expeditiously within the time fix by this Hon'ble Court."

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he is not pressing the writ petition insofar as it relates to prayer no.1 and confines his prayer to prayer no.2 made in the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Article 243K of the Constitution of India provides for election of the Panchayats to be held under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. In terms of the mandate casted by the Constitution, specific provisions have been incorporated under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of elections to the Panchayats as detailed in Chapter II A and III-A of the Act.

7. He places reliance on Section 5A of the said Act to impress this Court that the persons as defined under Section 5A are disqualified for being chosen as a Pradhan or a Member of the Gram Panchayat and the proviso to Section 5A(a) of the Act specifically provides that a person would be disqualified if he has not attained the age of 21 years.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on Section 6A of the Act, which confers the power on the prescribed authority to decide any question, which arises out of a contention that the person has incurred disqualification to be elected as a Pradhan or a Member of the Gram Panchayat.

9. In the light of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act, it is argued that the petitioner had filed an appropriate application after the election was over and in terms of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act, the matter is to be decided by the prescribed authority, which is not