JUDGMENT

S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 7th September, 1983, passed by third Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, in a revision u/s 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, setting aside the election of the Petitioner, who was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha 81 Grant No. 21 alias Dhakka Chaut, pargana and tahsil Pooranpur, district Pilibhit.

2. On 3rd June, 1982, the Petitioner was declared duly elected to the office of the Pradhan of the above mentioned Gaon Sabha defeating Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Mohammad Hasan, Respondent No. 2, filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority, Pooranpur, Pilibhit, u/s 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was filed on a number of grounds. One of the grounds taken by Respondent No. 2 was that the Petitioner's name was wrongly included in the Electoral Roll of the said Gaon Sabha and, for that reason, his nomination paper was invalid.

3. The petition was contested by the Petitioner. By an order dated 22nd March, 1983, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pooranpur, Pilibhit, dismissed the election petition. The Prescribed Authority held, inter alia, that no corrupt practice was adopted during the election. The other points raised by the Respondent No. 2 challenging the election were also decided against the Respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority, in particular, held that the Petitioner's name rightly appeared in the Voters' List and that the election could not be challenged on that ground also.

4. Aggrieved by that decision, a revision was filed u/s 120(6) of the Act before the District Judge. In revision, the order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged on two grounds, firstly, it was argued that u/s 12C(7), the Petitioner whose name appeared in the voters list of the Naaar Palika, Pilibhit, could not have been shown as a member of the concerned Gaon Sabha and, as such, he was not competent to contest the election, and, secondly, that the Petitioner had adopted corrupt practice and disturbed the polling booth during the voting.

5. The revisional court upheld the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority that no corrupt practice was adopted by the Petitioner, as urged by the Respondent No. 2 The revisional court, however, on the first contention raised by the Respondent No. 2, held that the Petitioner was wrongly entered in the voters list because he was not entitled to be registered in the eleAoral roll of the Gaon Sabha concerned because his name was entered in the electoral roll pertaining to ward No. 14 of Nagar Palika, Pilibhit, and that he had failed to show that his name had been struck off from the said electoral roll. Having given this finding, the revisional court further held that the Petitioner was not entitled to be a candidate for election of the Pradhan and, as such, the result of the election was materially affected. After recording this finding, the election of the Petitioner was set aside by order dated 7th September, 1983, which has been impugned in the present writ petition, as mentioned earlier.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that it was not open to the Prescribed Authority or the revisional court u/s 12C of the Act to go behind the electoral roll and enquire into the question as to whether the Petitioner was validly included in the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha or not. It was further urged by the learned Counsel that under the provisions of Section 12C of the Act, the election of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha could not be challenged on the ground that the name of a candidate has been wrongly included in the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha prepared under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under.

7. In order to consider the first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to examine the various provisions of the Act by virtue of which