JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside the election and declaring Opposite Party No. 1 as the duly elected candidate. 2. The Petitioner was a candidate for post of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Bhithi Newada, tahsil Shahabad, Distt. Hardoi and Opposite-Party No. 1 was also a rival candidate. The election was held on 19-12-1955 and there were two polling stations. One was at Bhithi and the other was at Newada. It was alleged that in respect of the polling station of Newada there was a note of the Assistant Returning Officer to the effect that the polling was misleading (Bhramatmak) Instead of ordering re-election the Petitioner had been declared elected on 4-1-1956. Later on 16-1-1956 Opposite Party No. 1 filed an election petition u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Act questioning the election inter alia on the ground that the votes had been tampered with. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that there had been a tampering but instead of ordering a re-election he declared Opposite party No. 1 as elected. 3. Rule 19-F of the election rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides: (1) If at any election any polling return is taken out of the custody of the Returning Officer or of any Presiding Officer, or is in any way tampered with or is either accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, the election to which such return relates shall be void. (2) Whenever the polling at any polling place shall become void under Sub-rule (1), the Returning Officer shall, as soon as may be, after the act or event causing such voidance has come to his knowledge, report the matter to the District Magistrate and shall, with his previous approval, appoint a day for the taking of a fresh poll at such polling place and fix the hours during which the poll will be taken". It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that once the Sub-Divisional Officer has come to the conclusion that there had been a tampering, he had no other option but to order a fresh election with the approval of the District Magistrate. There can be no doubt that the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer is to the effect that there had been a tampering. 4. There can be no doubt that the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer is to the effect that there had been a tampering. 4. It was contended by Opposite-Party No. 1 that the tampering had not taken place during the election but had taken place some time subsequently. Sub-rule (1) does not make any distinction as to the time when the tampering is made but it provides that in the case of tampering 'in any way', election has to be declared void. There is a further provision that if the return is accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, the election has also to be declared void. That event in all cases will happen after the election and, therefore, this rule contemplated the destruction or loss or tampering even after the election and it, need not be at the time of the election itself. In the circumstances it was the bounden duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to declare the election as void and to (sic)k the approval of the District Magistrate for fixing a date for fresh poll. 5. I accordingly quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahabad dated 16-4-1956 and send the case back to him with directions that the election be declared void and a fresh poll be ordered after taking the approval of the District Magistrate about the time, date, place and the hours of the polling. In the circumstances I make no order as to costs.