JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anas Shervani holding brief of Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vikram Soni learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Sri Maninder Singh holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 9, Sri Rakesh Chaudhary assisted by Sri Ayush Chaudhary learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and 8.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) To set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 in Case No.01473 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202110640501473) dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure No.1) whereby Respondent No.2 direct for recounting of the votes and further prayed to dismiss the election petition.

(ii) To, issue direction the Respondents not to interfere in functioning of the Petitioner as validity elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Murhadeeh, Block-Sidhauli, District-Sitapur.”

3. The case as set forth by the petitioner is that the State Government had notified the Panchayat Elections in the year 2020-2021. So far as the instant case is concerned, the notification was issued for election to the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Murhadeeh, Block Sidhauli, district Sitapur.

4. It is contended that in the election the petitioner was declared successful and a returned candidate on 30.5.2021. It is submitted that the respondent No.6 namely, Raj Kishor, filed an election petition bearing Case No.01473 of 2021 in re Raj Kishore Vs. Parashuram and others under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1947”) before the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sidhauli, district Sitapur, challenging the election of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was arrayed as respondents No.1 in the election petition. The petitioner filed written statement and after consideration of the material on record, the Prescribed Authority, vide impugned order dated 21.12.2021 a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the petition, allowed the petition and directed for recounting of votes. Being aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.

5. Various grounds have been taken by the petitioner to challenge the order impugned in the petition. However, the legal question which arose on hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, with the consent of the parties, is being decided first.

6. The legal question which has arisen in the instant petition is whether the Prescribed Authority has erred in law in directing for re-counting of votes while finally deciding the election petition inasmuch as to whether the Prescribed Authority could pass any further order on receipt of the result of the re-counting of votes once the election petition had been finally decided and consequently the Prescribed Authority became ‘functus officio’?

7. From the admitted facts, it emerges that after the petitioner had been declared elected as Gram Pradhan, an election petition was filed under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 by the respondent No.6 which has resulted in the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 by which the petition has been allowed and a re-counting of votes has been directed.

8. The Act, 1947 is a complete act pertaining to the Panchayat Raj. Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 deals with the procedure for questioning the elections.

For the sake of convenience, Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 is reproduced as under:-

“12-C. Application for questioning the elections – (1) The election of a person as Pradhan [* * *] or as member of a Gram Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as the Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that –

(a) the election has not been a free election by reason that the cor