Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. The petitioner (Election Petitioner) before this Court had contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhangura, Vikas Khand Kudaraha in the year 2021. The result was declared on 02.05.2021 and respondent No.4, the Returned Candidate, won the election and secured 349 votes while Election Petitioner got 335 votes.

2. The election petition was filed by the petitioner before Sub-

Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Basti under Section 12-C of Uttat Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1947”) on the ground that husband of Returned Candidate Jaggiram was Booth Level Officer (hereinafter called as “BLO”) appointed in the same Village Panchayat and had influenced the election by inducting 49 new voters of another village and succeeded in getting the result in favour of Returned Candidate.

3. An allegation was made in the election petition that 49 voters, who were included in the voter list of Village Panchayat in which elections were held, the names of these 49 voters also found place in 6 Village Panchayats and the votes counted in favour of the Returned Candidate led to her victory on the ground of double voting. In paras 8 to 14 of the election petition, descriptions of voters whose names appear in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Bhangura as well as other Gram Panchayats namely Vihara, Bhedwa, Sonbarsa, Turkauliya, Devadeeha, and Paun have been given. Further ground has been taken that Section 62(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1951) provides that each person shall be entitled to vote only once and no person shall vote in more than one constituency of the same class, and if he does so, his votes shall be void in all such constituencies. Section 9(6) of Act of 1947 secures the spirit of ‘one elector one vote’. Para 15 of the election petition takes note of 11 affidavits filed by residents of the six Gram Panchayats confirming that the voters, mentioned in paras 9 to 14 of election petition, had not only voted in Gram Panchayat Bhangura but also in their respective Gram Panchayats.

4. The aforesaid election petition was contested by the Returned Candidate by filing a written statements. It was alleged that after publication of electoral role, objections were invited, but, the Election Petitioner did not file any objection to the electoral role. Further, there was no documentary evidence on record to prove that 49 voters, whose names appear in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Bhangura, had also voted in the other Gram Panchayat.

5. The Prescribed Authority, on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence led therein, vide order dated 27.12.2022, proceeded to hold the election null and void as names of 49 persons of six different Gram Panchayats appeared in the electoral role of Gram Panchayat Bhangura and 11 persons have given their affidavits to the effect that they have seen those persons casting their vote in their Gram Panchayat also, and declared the post of Pradhan vacant.

6. Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, the Returned Candidate preferred Civil Revision No.1 of 2023 before the District Judge, Basti. The Revision was allowed vide order impugned dated 24.05.2023 and the order of Prescribed Authority dated 27.12.2022 was set aside hence the present writ petition.

7. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Election Petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the revision and the order passed de hors the rules and the process established by law. He contended that the Returned Candidate Anju Kumari was married to Jaggiram on 24.03.2021, and prior to that she was residing in another village but her name had been entered in the voter list of Village Bhangura, which had already been finalized and the elections were held in April, 2021. He next contended that the husband of Retu