JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner and Dasrath, opposite party no. 1 were two rival candidates for the office of the Pradhan of village Dih Koeran, in district Banaras, in an election which was held on the 28th of December, 1955. The petitioner was duly elected by defeating the opposite party no. 1 by twenty-one votes. An election petition was filed before the S. D. O. of Gayanpur, challenging the validity of the election of the petitioner by the opposite party no. 1. Two grounds were urged by the opposite party no. 1. Firstly, it was contended that the petitioner was below thirty years of age and as such, disqualified to be elected a Pradhan and his nomination was wrongfully accepted. Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practice and undue influence and consequently the whole election was void. The S. D. O. did not accept the allegation of the opposite party no. 1 that corrupt practice and undue influence extensively prevailed at the election. But he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was aged below' thirty years. The petitioner had produced a certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Banaras, to the effect that the age of the petitioner was between thirty-two and thirty-five years on the 26th of June, 1955 when the nomination papers were filed. On the findings that the petitioner was aged below thirty years, the S. D. O. allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the S. D. O. setting aside the election of the petitioner. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Sections 12-C, 6-A and R. 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the S. D. O. had no jurisdiction to decide the question relating to the age of the petitioner. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the question was not raised before the S. D. O. that the matter should have been referred to the Tahsildar and it is denied that the S. D. O. had no power to go into the question of age. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the question was not raised before the S. D. O. that the matter should have been referred to the Tahsildar and it is denied that the S. D. O. had no power to go into the question of age. Section 5-A of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat, or the Nyaya Panchayat constituted under Section 42, if he- (a) is, for the time being, not a member of the Gaon Sabha concerned, (b) holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a local authority (other than a Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat), (c) is a salaried servant of a Gaon Sabha or a Nyaya Panchayat, (d) has been dismissed from the service of a State Government, the Central Government or a local authority or a Nyaya Panchayat for misconduct, (e) is in arrears of any tax, fee or rate due by him to the Gaon Sabha for such period as may be prescribed." 3. Section 5-B of the said Act provides that a member of a Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as Pradhan unless he is not less than thirty years of age. Section 6-A of the Act provides that if any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 5, 5-A or 5-B or in sub-Section (1) of Section 6, the question shall be referred to the prescribed authority for the decision and his decision shall, subject to the result of any appeal as may be prescribed, be final, and the name of the person shall, if necessary, be struck off from the register of members. Section 9 then provides for the preparation of the register of members and section 11-B provides for the election of Pradhan. Section 9 then provides for the preparation of the register of members and section 11-B provides for the election of Pradhan. Section 12-C provides that the election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or as member of a Gaon Panchayat including the election of a person who may be appointed as a Panch of a Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that- (a) the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice or bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 4. Rule 14 of the rules framed under the Act provides that where any question as is referred to in Section 6-A of the Act is raised otherwise than in a claim or objection, it shall be referred to the Tahsildar by the Officer or Authority before whom such question arises for consideration. The other various sub-sections of this Rule provide for the procedure which is to be followed by the Tahsildar. Sub-Section (4) of Rule 14 also provides for the right of appeal against the order of the Tahsildar. Sub-Section (7) of the same Rule provides that on the receipt of a copy of the order under sub-rule (6) the Secretary of the Sabha shall, if necessary, strike off the name of the person concerned from the adult-register and shall send intimation thereof to the person concerned. Pules 4 and onwards deal with the preparation of the register. After the preparation of the draft register under Rule 4-F, claims and objections can be filed under Rule 4-H. Thereafter, the claims and objections shall be published in the office of the Panchayat Secretary. The Panchayat Inspector shall dispose of the claims and objections under Rule 4-J. Rule 4-J itself provides that if any question of the nature referred to in Section 6-A of the Act is raised, the matter is to be referred to the Tahsildar for investigation by the Panchayat Inspector. The Panchayat Inspector shall dispose of the claims and objections under Rule 4-J. Rule 4-J itself provides that if any question of the nature referred to in Section 6-A of the Act is raised, the matter is to be referred to the Tahsildar for investigation by the Panchayat Inspector. The combined effect of these two rules, Rule 4-J and Rule 14, is that a question regarding disqualification referred to in Section 6-A of the Act is to be investigated and decided by the Tahsildar. If it is raised before a Panchayat Inspector, he is to refer it to the Tahsildar under Rule 4-J. If it is otherwise raised it is to be referred to the Tahsildar under Rule 14. After decision has been given by the Tahsildar and any appeal against that decision has been finally disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Rule 14, the register of members is to be corrected in accordance with such decision, in view of the provisions of Section 6-A as well as clause (7) of Rule 14. The only consequence, therefore, of any such decision after reference is that the register is to be corrected accordingly. Before the register is finalised at the initial stages, a correction can be made on determination of the objection regarding the disqualification by the Tahsildar under Rule 4-J. If any person becomes subject to any disqualification subsequently or such a disqualification is pointed out at a later stage, it can be investigated by the Tahsildar but that does not take away the powers of the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 12(c) to decide the question whether the nomination of a candidate had been wrongfully accepted or rejected, that is a power which has been expressly given to the Sub-Divisional Officer while deciding an election petition. If a candidate was disqualified to be nominated and his nomination, in spite of such disqualification, had been accepted, it is nothing but wrongful acceptance of the nomination within the meaning of Section 12-C, and it is within the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer when dealing with an election petition to investigate into this question as to whether a candidate's nomination had been wrongfully accepted or not. There is, therefore, no force in this contention that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to decide this question. 5. There is, therefore, no force in this contention that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to decide this question. 5. It was then contended that Rule 14 contemplates a reference to the Tahsildar by the Sub-Divisional Officer if in the election petition the question of disqualification has been raised. There is nothing in Section 12-C and Rules 24 and 25, (which prescribe the procedure for investigation of an election petition) which makes it obligatory on the Sub-Divisional Officer to refer this issue to the Tahsildar for decision. Rule 14 cannot override the provisions of this Act. If Section 12-C itself does not enjoin upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to refer the matter to the Tahsildar, that power cannot be given to the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of Rule 14. The proper way to read Section 12-C and Rule 14 read with Section 6-A is to interpret Rule 14 in a manner as to give power to the Tahsildar to decide the question of disqualification, but not to take away the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the question if it arises in connection with an election petition. 6. Regarding the merits of the finding, there was evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was within his jurisdiction to decide the question whether the petitioner was below thirty and the finding cannot be disturbed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of any manifest error of law or want of jurisdiction on the part of the subordinate tribunal. 7. There is, therefore, no force in this petition and it is accordingly rejected. But I make no order as to costs in this case.