The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited right of appeal provided by the statute and the need for a literal interpretation of the rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 passed by respondent no.2 vide which election of petitioner for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh Provincial Election Area No.98, District Saharanpur, has been declared void.

3. The petitioner was elected as a Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil-Nakud, District-Saharanpur under O.B.C. (Woman) reserved category in the uncontested elections held under Rule 14 of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994[Rules of 1994] by the results declared on 10.07.2021.

4. An election petition under Rule 35 of Rules of 1994 was filed by respondent no.6 on 06.08.2021 with a prayer to set aside the uncontested election of the petitioner (opposite party no.4 in the election petition) dated 10.07.2021 for the office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Provincial Election Area No.98, Saharanpur declaring the election of the returned candidate (petitioner) as void. The election petition came to be decided finally on 20.09.2023 wherein the order dated 10.07.2021 passed by opposite party no.3 was set aside and the election of petitioner, the returned candidate, was declared void. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, submits that Rule 35 provides manner and time of presenting the election petitions.

6. As per Rule 37, the election petitioner may claim either of the following declarations/reliefs;

(a) that the election of returned candidate is void; and

(b) that the election of returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.

7. As per Rule 43 of Rules of 1994, if a Judge hearing the election petition, after making such enquiry finds in respect of any person whose election is called in question by means of filing an election petition, that his election was valid, he shall dismiss the petition as against such person. However, if the Judge finds that the election of any person is invalid, he shall either-

(a) declare a casual vacancy to have been created; or

(b) declare another candidate to have been duly elected.

8. As per Rule 44 of Rules 1994, if any person who has lodged an election petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the Judge is of the opinion that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes, Judge shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.

9. Emphasising upon Rule 49, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that an appeal shall lie against every order made by the Judge under Rule 44 to the High Court within 30 days from the date of order.

10. Emphasising upon the aforesaid provisions, he submits that election petition, which has been filed under Rule 35, has to be presented praying for relief either to declare the election of the returned candidate void, and that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself i.e the election petitioner or any other candidate has been duly elected. In the present case, the election petition challenging the election of the petitioner as Block Pramukh has been filed with the relief to set aside the election dated 10.07.2021 and declare the election of the returned candidate i.e the petitioner, as void.

11. Learned Senior counsel next contended that the order impugned