JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Shikohabad allowing an election petition. There was election for the Office of Pradhan of Gram Sabha of village Hariha in district Mainpuri. Darman Singh was declared elected to the office of Pradhan. Dori Lal filed an election challenging Darman Singh's election. The election petition was allowed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Shikohabad on 13-3-1956. The election was declared invalid, and it was further declared that a casual vacancy for the office of Pradhan had been created. Darman Singh filed an application for review. The review, application was rejected on 15-6-1956. Darman Singh has filed this writ petition forgetting the two orders dated 13-3-1956 and 15-6-1956 quashed. 2. In the election petition Dori Lal raised two points. The first point was that malpractices prevailed at the election. The second point was that Darman Singh was not qualified to stand for the election. No evidence was produced in support of the charge of malpractices. That issue was decided against Dori Lal. On the second point the Tribunal held that Darman Singh was holder of an office of profit from the District Beard. He was, therefore, disqualified for the election. On that view the election petition was allowed and Darman Singh's election was set aside. 3. So the question for decision in this writ petition was whether Darman Singh was a holder of an office of profit as found by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. S. 5A UP Panchayat Raj Act deals with disqualifications for holding office under Gaou Sabha. Cl (b) S 5A is- 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). The question of 'office of profit' was discussed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer under issue No. 2. He observed: lt is admitted that the opposite party Darman Singh is a contractor of Jamuna Ghat on behalf of District Board, Agra. It appears from the arguments that the contract was sold by the auction and the term of contract is one year. The contract is in force. I agree that this is an office of profit from the District Board. The District Board is a local authority. It appears from the arguments that the contract was sold by the auction and the term of contract is one year. The contract is in force. I agree that this is an office of profit from the District Board. The District Board is a local authority. The question is whether a contractor, who has purchased in auction the right to ply boats on a Ghat, is a holder of an office of profit. Mr. Ranjit Singh appearing for Dori Lal relied upon the dictionany meaniug of the word 'office'. According to dictionary, one of the meaning attached to the word 'office' is "business." The Petitioner was doing the business of plying boats on a Ghat. It was, therefore, argued that he held an office. 4. The expression "office of profit" came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ravanna Subanna Vs. G.S. Kaggeerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653 . In that case the Chairman of a Taluk Development Committee received a sum of Rs. 6 for attending a meeting. The question arose whether be held an office of profit. It was held that he did not hold an office of profit. Their Lordships observed at p. 656: The plain meaning of the expression seems to be that an office must be held under Government to which any pay, salary emoluments or allowance is attached. 5. In S.C. Sreemanavikraman Raja, Zamorin Rajah of Kozhikode and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras and Another, AIR 1957 Mad 522 the Madras High Court quoted with approval the observations of "Lord Wright in 1942 A.C. 561 at p.566, to the effect that- An office is a position to which certain duties are attached. 6. In Venkatappa v. Subba Rao AIR 1957 Mysore 79 the question arose whether a stamp vendor held an office of profit. The stamp vendor was entitled to get commission at a fixed rate from the Government as value of stamps sold by him. He was not entitled to any fixed remuneration for vending stamps from Government. It was held that the stamp vendor could not be considered to be a person holding an office of profit. 7. An independent contractor is on a slightly belter footing than a stamp vendor. According to the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Officer, the contract was sold by auction. The Petitioner was successful in the auction. It was held that the stamp vendor could not be considered to be a person holding an office of profit. 7. An independent contractor is on a slightly belter footing than a stamp vendor. According to the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Officer, the contract was sold by auction. The Petitioner was successful in the auction. He obtained the contract to work at a certain Ghat. Under this transaction the Petitioner paid a certain sum to the District Board, and acquired the tight to work at the Ghat. Mr. Ranjit Singh conceded that the Petitioner was not a servant of the District Board. It was, however, contended that he held an office of profit. I do not agree. It may be conceded that the Petitioner expected profit from the business The element of profit is there. But it does not follow that he held any office under the District Board. He is independent contractor. 8. The Tribunal was clearly wrong in its view that the contractor held an office of profit. Since this is an error apparent on the face of the record, the decision is liable to be quashed by issuing a writ of a certiorari. 9. The petition is allowed. The orders of the learned Sub-Divisonal Officer, Shikohabad dated 13-3-1956 and 15-6-1956 are quashed. The Petitioner shall get his costs from opposite party No. 2 Don Lal.