JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 by opposite party No. 2 i.e. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh in Case No. 3146/2021 (Computerized Case No. T2021102570203146), as Contained as Annexure No. 1, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioner as validly elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat-Naubasta, Block Lakshmanpur, District-Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.”

3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the side opposite stated that the present petition, challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2-Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh, in the proceedings instituted under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short “Act of 1947”) registered as Case No. 3146 of 2021, Computerized Case No. T2021102570203146, whereby, the proceedings instituted under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947 have been finally concluded with a direction for recounting of votes, is not maintainable in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947. In other words, by the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 the opposite party No. 2 has finally decided the case instituted under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947, as such, the statutory remedy by way of filing of revision, as provided under Section 12-C(6) of the Act of 1947, would lie against the impugned order dated 05.06.2023.

4. Being relevant, operative portion of the order impugned dated 05.06.2023 is extracted herein:

^^mijksDr foospuk ,oa ;kfpdkdrhZ }kjk ÁLrqr fof/k O;oLFkk ds vkyksd esa ;kphdrhZ }kjk ÁLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA ;kfpdk esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij iqueZrx.kuk fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA iquZerx.kuk fnukad 21-06-2023 dks U;k;ky; miftykf/kdkjh ykyxat esa lEiUu gksA vkns'k dh Áfr eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh Árkixढ++ dks ÁHkkjh vf/kdkjh iap LFkkuh; pquko Árkixढ+ lgk;d ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh iap LFkkuh; pquko Árkixढ+ dks iquZerx.kuk gsrq okafNr vfHkys[kksa dks miyC/k djkus ,oa ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh Árkixढ+ dks lwpukFkZ gsrq Ásf"kr fd;k tk;A vkns'k dh ,d Áfr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh y{e.kiqj dks vius lkFk iakp x.kd ds lkFk mifLFkr jgdj iqueZrx.kuk esa lg;ksx djus ,oa ÁHkkjh fujh{kd ykyxat dks mDr le; vko';d lqj{kk O;oLFkk lqfuf'pr djus gsrq Ásf"krA okn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nrj gksA**

5. It appears from the operative portion of the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, quoted above, that the Prescribed Authority vide order 05.06.2023 allowed the election petition and directed for recounting of votes and also directed that after necessary action the matter be consigned to record.

6. Whereas the final relief which can be granted in election petition filed under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947, reflects from Section 12-C(4)(ii) which indicates that the Prescribed Authority can set aside the election or declare the election to be void or declare the applicant to be duly elected or any other relief can be granted to the petitioner.

7. In the instant case, a perusal of the order impugned dated 05.06.2023 would indicate that the Prescribed Authority, while passing the order has neither set aside the election nor declared the election to be void nor declared the concerned to be duly elected rather has directed for re-counting of votes and allowed the election petition.

8. In response to the objection regarding maintainability of the present petition, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith Sri Prabhat Kumar Ojha, Advocate and Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate, submitted that the order of recounting of votes is an order of interlocutory in nature, as such, the present petition would be maint