JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer Chunar dated 13th March, 1956 rejecting an application of the petitioners for permission to amend their election petition filed under Sec. 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioners have alleged in the affidavit supporting the petition that they are electors in the register of the members Part II of the Gaon Sabha, Bagaha, district Mirzapur. A general election took place in the Gaon Sabha on 18-12-55 for the purpose of electing the Pradhan and the members of the Gaon Sabha. Har Naresh Singh, respondent no. 2 was elected as Pradhan and Amarjeet Singh and others, respondent no. 3 to 25 as members of the Gaon Panchayat. The petitioners filed an election petition under Sec. 12 (c) of the aforesaid Act read with Rule 24 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, challenging the election of the respondent Hamaresh Singh as Pradhan and of the respondents 3 to 25 as members. This petition was filed before the S.D.O. Chunar, respondent no. 1 in the present petition. Notices were issued to the persons cited as respondents in the election petition. At the time of the hearing a preliminary objection was raised that the petition was not maintainable, being a composite petition challenging the validity of several elections - that of the Pradhan and also of 23 others as members. It was also pointed out that only one security had been deposited. The preliminary objection was considered by the S.D.O. on 13th March, 1956. On that date the present petitioners made an application for permission to amend the election petition by withdrawing the relief against the Pradhan and removing him from the array of the respondents. The petition was moved because the S.D.O. gave expression to the view that the election of the Pradhan and the members could not be rolled up into one relief in a composite petition. After hearing both sides the S.D.O. disallowed the application for amendment and dismissed the election petition itself. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing it. 2. After hearing both sides the S.D.O. disallowed the application for amendment and dismissed the election petition itself. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing it. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous because it is based on the finding that two elections could not be challenged by a single petition and that a chalan of the value of Rs. 10 should have been filed. Learned counsel however contended that the petitioners had not challenged the election of a particular person but the entire election itself. The fairness of the regularity of the entire election proceedings had been impugned in the petition. He also submitted that the election petition under Sec. 12 (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is not directed against a particular person but against the entire election proceedings, though the incidental result of the success of such a petition must be that a particular person or persons election is set aside. I am afraid I am unable to accept this interpretation of Sec. 12(c). 3. That section provides that "the election of a person as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or as member of Gaon Panchayat 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. This section has to be read with Rule 24 of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Sub-rule 1 of this Rule is as follows: "An application - shall be presented before the S.D.O. and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds: Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a treasury chalan to show that the amount of Rs. 5 has been deposited in the personal ledger of the Sabha concerned as security." 4. To me it is clear from the section and the rules that an election petition can challenge the election of a person. In other words a composite petition challenging the election of several persons is not permitted by Sec. 12(c). 5 has been deposited in the personal ledger of the Sabha concerned as security." 4. To me it is clear from the section and the rules that an election petition can challenge the election of a person. In other words a composite petition challenging the election of several persons is not permitted by Sec. 12(c). This is made further clear by the wording of Rule 24 which refers to the "election of the respondent." If the reasoning of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted to be correct the words in Rule 24 would have been "election of the respondent or respondents." 5. Learned counsel relied on Sec. 13 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, clause (2) of which says that in all Uttar Pradesh Acts- words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. But it is made clear in that section that this would not apply if there is any thing repugnant in the subject or the context of the Act under consideration. On a reading of the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules I find that the words 'a person' in Sec. 12(c) do not include the plural. In Rule 16 the word 'election' has been defined as "election to fill a seat in a Gaon Panchayat including Nyaya Panchayat." "Seat" has been defined in the same Rule as a seat allotted to a constituency for elections to Gaon Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat." Thus every member is individually elected and there is no such thing as a collective election. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is only one election and that members are not individually elected is not correct. This is borne out by Rule 190 which deals with the procedure for voting. In an election the Presiding Officer calls out, one by one, the names of the contesting candidates and the electors present are required to vote for him before the name of the next candidate is called. Then comes the turn of the next candidate who is voted upon and so on, till all the candidates have been disposed of. The number of votes in favour of each candidate is announced each time separately. At the end of the proceedings the Presiding Officer prepares a record of the voting and must deliver the polling return to the Returning Officer. The number of votes in favour of each candidate is announced each time separately. At the end of the proceedings the Presiding Officer prepares a record of the voting and must deliver the polling return to the Returning Officer. All this shows that there is not one election in the sense argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner's case in the election petition was that due to a general atmosphere of undue influence prevailing at the time of the election, the entire election proceedings were void and liable to be set aside. There was no allegation of corrupt practise against any particular successful candidate. But the petitioners have not filed a copy of the election petition nor have they made any allegation in their affidavit as to the precise nature of their allegations in the election petition. I asked counsel for the petitioners if he had any copy of the election petition in his possession which could be perused by the Court. He said he had none. In these circumstances no argument can be based upon allegations which are not a part of the record and for which there is no material. Learned counsel sought to derive support for his argument from the Language of the Representation of the Peoples Act. He drew attention to Sec. 82 of that Act which deals with a situation where the petitioner claims a declaration that the election of "all or any of the returned candidates" is void. This shows, according to the learned counsel, that it is possible to challenge the election of more than one candidate in a single petition. I am afraid it is not possible for me to construe the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act from the language of another Act, particularly when no attempt has been made to show that the two statutes are in pari materia. The right of a person to file an election petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is derived from that Act and the scope of this right must be limited to its provisions. The right of a person to file an election petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is derived from that Act and the scope of this right must be limited to its provisions. It was laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagannath v. Jaswant Singh, A.I.R. 1954 SC 210 as follows: "The general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that it is a sound principle of natural justice that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. None of these propositions however has any application if the special law itself confers authority on a Tribunal to proceed with a petition in accordance with certain procedure and when it does not state the consequences of non-compliance with certain procedural requirements laid down by it." 7. In this case it is an admitted fact that there was non-compliance with the statutory provisions, first a composite election petition was filed challenging the election of the Pradhan as well as 23 members of the Gaon Sabha. Even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the election of the members is one and indivisible - be conceded, it would not follow that the election of the Pradhan and the members is also of the same nature. Members are elected constituency-wise, whereas a Pradhan is elected by all the Constituencies together. The electorate in the election of the Pradhan is larger than in that of the members. There is therefore force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that a petition to set aside the election of a Pradhan could not be combined with a petition directed against the election of members. In the case of the Pradhan, at any rate, there is only one election and the words a person in Sec. 12(c) must be limited to the singular in the case of a Pradhan. The petitioners filed a composite election petition on payment of a security of Rs. 5 only. In the case of the Pradhan, at any rate, there is only one election and the words a person in Sec. 12(c) must be limited to the singular in the case of a Pradhan. The petitioners filed a composite election petition on payment of a security of Rs. 5 only. But the proviso to Rule 24 states that no election petition shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a treasury chalan to show that the amount of Rs. 5/- has been deposited as security. The petitioners filed more than one election petition but deposited Rs. 5/- only. There is nothing to show whether, this security was intended to cover any particular relief. As pointed out by the S. D. O., "the two reliefs (against the Pradhan and the members) are entirely mixed up in the application and it is not possible to separate one from the other." There was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 24. The proviso states that an application without a security shall not even be entertained. 8. The position when an election petition is unaccompanied by a treasury chalan is governed by Rule 25 (1) (vii). This clause says that the S.D.O. may at any time dismiss such a petition. This is precisely what the S.D.O. has done. He says "I am of opinion that the petition which has joined two separate reliefs arising out of two different causes of action and that too, without the challan of the proper amount, is liable to be dismissed." Thereupon, in the exercise of his discretionary power under the aforesaid clause, he dismissed the petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was entitled to join several causes of action in a single petition in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been made applicable to election petitions under the Panchayat Raj Act. But, even under that Code, the petitioner has to satisfy the Court on material placed before it that several causes of action may be joined. In the present case there is no material before me to suggest that this is a fit case for joinder. 10. In writ petition no. 1373 of 1958 a Division Bench of this court held that the dismissal of an election petition by the election tribunal, construed under the Representation of the Peoples Act, for failure to comply with the requirements of See. 10. In writ petition no. 1373 of 1958 a Division Bench of this court held that the dismissal of an election petition by the election tribunal, construed under the Representation of the Peoples Act, for failure to comply with the requirements of See. 82 (a) of that Act is fully justified. 11. This principle would apply also to a case of dismissal by the S.D.O. of an election petition under Sec. 12 (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 12 (c) read with Rule 24. The petition has no force and is rejected. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner were pressed at great length and the hearing of this petition was extended over several days. I assess the costs at Rs. 300/-