JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge dated 8-3-1956. 2. The Appellant and respnodent No. 2 were candidates for election to the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. The election was held on 15-12-1955, and on 3-1-1956, the Appellant was declared to be duly elected. For the purposes of the election the electoral district was divided into two wards named Gher Sarjit Singh and Gher Zamindar Singh, the votes obtained by the two candidates being as follows: GherSarjit Singh GherZamindar Singh Appellant 179 144 Second respondent 253 53 3. On 4-1-1956, that is to say on the day after the result of the election had been declared, it was discovered that the polling return in respect of Ward Gher Sarjit Singh had been tampered with, the number 253 representing the votes cast for the second Respondent having been altered to 353 and then again changed to the original number 253. An enquiry was made by the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer who found that the person responsible for the tampering was the Panchayat Secretary at the instance of the second Respondent. The matter was brought to the attention of the District Magistrate and he by an order dated 9-2-1956 directed that a fresh poll be taken on the ensuing 2nd March, a date which was subsequently changed to the 15th March. The effect of this order was to set aside the election of the Appellant as Pradhan. In the meantime on 8-3-1956, the Appellant filed a petition in this Court in which he challenged the validity of the District Magistrate's order dated 9-2-1956, and prayed that it be quashed by a writ of certiorari.(sic) That petition was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that the order of the District Magistrate was in accordance with the provisions of R. 19F of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules and it is from that order of dismissal that the Appellant now appeals. During the hearing of the appeal the Court was informed that as a result of the fresh election held in Ward Gher Sarjit Singh on 15-3-1956, the second Respondent had been declared elected and on an application made by the Appellant leave granted to him to amend his petition by the addition thereto of a prayer that the election of the second Respondent be declared null and void. 4. 4. R. 19F reads thus: (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 u/s ub R. (1), the Returning Officer shall as soon as may be, after the act or event causing such void-ance 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. (3) In every such case as aforesaid the Returning officer shall take a fresh poll at such polling place as aforesaid on the day so appointed by him, and shall notify the date so appointed and the hours of polling so fixed by him in such manner as may be specified by him and the provisions of this chapter shall apply to every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll. 5. The argument on behalf of the Appellant is that under this rule a fresh poll is to be ordered by the District Magistrate in those cases only in which the loss of the polling return or the fact of its removal from proper custody or of its having been tampered with is discovered before the declaration of the poll and that once the election has been declared the successful candidate can be unseated only by an order made on an election petition. We are of opinion that this submission must be upheld. 6. S. 12C of the Act provides that the election of a person as a Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha "shall not be called in question" "except by an application presented to the prescribed authority on one or more of the grounds specified in that section The terms of the section are clear and in our opinion the purpose and effect of it is to secure the elected candidate in his office for the period provided by law subject only to his election being declared invalid as a result of an election petition. If upon a true interpretation R. 19F can result in rendering void the election of a candidate we should be disposed to hold that the rule is to that extent ultra vires the act; but we do not think that this is the meaning of the rule. 7. In the first place the word 'election' is used in sub R. (l)in two different senses. It is used where it first appears as meaning the process by which a candidate is elected, on the second occasion on which it is used it means as is made clear by sub Rr. (2) & (3)] the poll at a particular place. The rule nowhere makes provision in terms for an election, in the sense of the final selection of a candidate being avoided. 8. Secondly it is to be observed that the rule makes provision for the situation which arises when something untoward happens to the polling return. A polling return is prepared in respect of the votes cast at each polling station and u/R. 19G the Returning Officer is required to verify the polling returns and on the basis thereof to prepare an election return setting forth the results of election. It is at the stage of verification if not earlier that it will ordinarily be ascertained whether any of the untoward happenings for which R. 19F makes provision has arisen; at a stage, that is to say, before the result of the election has been declared. 9. Thirdly, the restricted scope of the R. 19F is in our opinion indicated by the position in which this rule is found among the rules relating to elections. R. 19A makes provision for admission to the polling place, R. 19B deals with the right to vote and R. 19C with the procedure to be followed before the commencement of polling. R. 19B lavs down the precedure for voting and R. 19E makes provision for the adjournment of the polling in cases of emergency. Then comes R. 19F. R. l9G deals with election returns, R. 19H with situation which arises if there is an equality of votes while R. 19 I deals with the declaration of the results of the poll. R. 19J then provides for the results of poll being sent to the District Magistrate and the Secretary of the Sabha, and R. 19K for the custody, inspection and disposal of election papers. R. 19J then provides for the results of poll being sent to the District Magistrate and the Secretary of the Sabha, and R. 19K for the custody, inspection and disposal of election papers. The position of R 19F is, in our opinion, a clear indication that it is a rule intended to make provision for certain eventualities which come to light before the result of the election is declared. 10. For these reasons we are of opinion that the discovery of the fact that a polling paper had been tampered with after the election of the Appellant had been declared did not attract the application of R. 19F and than the District Magistrate accordingly had no power on 9-2-1956, to direct that a fresh election in ward Gher Sarjit Singh be held The District Magistrate's order of that date was not a valid order, and we accordingly direct that it be quashed. It follows from this direction that there was no vacancy which it was necessary to fill and as held by this Court in Purshottam Chandra v. State of Uttar Praaesh 1957 AWR 864 the consequence is that the election of the second Respondent on 15-3-1956, is null and void 11. The Appellant is entitled to his costs.