JUDGMENT M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - This is an appeal against the Judgment of Mr. Justice Brij Mohan Lall, dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were candidates for the office of Chairman, Town Area Committee, Bisauli, District Budaun, in the elections held in October, 1953. The nomination paper of the second respondent, Sri Dev Raj, was rejected by the Returning Officer and the third respondent Sri Jai Lal subsequently withdrew from the election. Only two candidates were thus left in whose favour votes were cast, and the respondent No. 1, Sri Mahendra Pal, was declared as having been duly elected, by a majority of votes, to the office. The appellant filed an election petition in which he challenged the election of the first respondent on the grounds that the respondent had been guilty of corrupt practices, that he had procured the withdrawal of opposite party No. 3 from the election by offering him a bribe and that the nomination paper of respondent No. 2 had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Election Tribunal held that it was not proved that the respondent No. 1 had been guilty of any corrupt practice or that he had procured the withdrawal of the respondent No. 3 from the election by offering a bribe. On the point whether the nomination paper of the second respondent was wrongly rejected it held that the rejection was wrong. But the Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant could not challenge the election of the first respondent on the ground that the nomination paper of the second respondent had been wrongly rejected, and that in any event it had not been proved that the result of the election had been materially affected by the rejection of the second respondent's nomination paper. 3. The appellant then filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legality of the order of the Election Tribunal but the learned judge dismissed the petition as he agreed with the decision of the Election Tribunal. 4. In the appeal before us learned counsel for the appellant has urged two grounds. 3. The appellant then filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legality of the order of the Election Tribunal but the learned judge dismissed the petition as he agreed with the decision of the Election Tribunal. 4. In the appeal before us learned counsel for the appellant has urged two grounds. He contends, first, that the appellant could challenge the election of the first respondent on the ground that the nomination paper of the second respondent had been wrongly rejected and, secondly, that it was not necessary for the rejection of the said nomination paper had materially affected the result of the election. 5. Under Section 39 (2), clause (f), of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, as it stood prior to the enactment of the U. P. down Areas (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Act V of 1953) the Provincial or State Government had power to frame rules for the purpose, inter alia of settling disputes or questions arising from elections; and in exercise of that power the Provincial Government promulgated certain Rules regarding elections to Town Areas. Rules 47 to 53 of these Rules related to election petitions. In Sirajul Haq v. Chaudhri Satgur Pd., Writ Petition No. 1190-54, decided on the 19th April, 1955, it was held by this Court that as a result of the Amending Act of 1952, Rules 47 to 53 were invalid. As a consequence of this decision the U.P. Town Areas (Amendment) Act, 1955 (Act XIX of 1955) was passed, the effect of which is, so far as the present election is concerned, to validate the original Rules. This is not in dispute. The answer to the first submission made by learned counsel turn accordingly upon the interpretation of R. 48 which reads as follows: "48. The election of any person as chairman or member of the committee may be questioned on any of the following grounds: (a) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes, or for any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes. (b) that such person committed a corrupt practice as defined in rule 49 below for the purpose of the election; (c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of a petitioner was improperly rejected." 6. (b) that such person committed a corrupt practice as defined in rule 49 below for the purpose of the election; (c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of a petitioner was improperly rejected." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the words "any other reason" in clause (a) of this section would include the rejection of the nomination paper of a candidate who is not the person who files the election petition. We do not however think that this is correct. The ground under the latter part of clause (a) must be a ground showing that for some reason the respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes as might, for example, be the case if votes were cast by persons who were not entitled to vote but whose names had been wrongly entered in the electoral roll. It must be proved that if lawful votes only had been taken into account the respondent would not have been declared to have been duly elected as he did not obtain a majority of such votes. We however think that it is unnecessary to speculate as to the classes of cases which would fall within the ambit of the second part of clause (a), for it appears to us that upon reading clauses (a) and (c) together it is sufficiently clear that "any other reason" will not include the improper rejection of a nomination paper of a person other than the petitioner. Clause (c) enables a petitioner to challenge an election on the ground that the elected person was not qualified to be nominated or that his own nomination paper was improperly rejected. If the rule making authority had intended that an unsuccessful candidate could challenge the validity of an election on the ground that the nomination paper of any other candidate had been improperly rejected the words "a petitioner" would not have been used in this clause. The introduction of these words shows, in our opinion, that it was not the intention of the legislature that the improper rejection of the nomination paper of a candidate who does not himself file an election petition would be a ground for challenging the validity of an election at the instance of another candidate. The introduction of these words shows, in our opinion, that it was not the intention of the legislature that the improper rejection of the nomination paper of a candidate who does not himself file an election petition would be a ground for challenging the validity of an election at the instance of another candidate. We think therefore that the view taken by the learned Judge as well as by the Election Tribunal was right. 7. In these circumstances the second question does not arise and it is unnecessary for us to express an opinion upon it. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.