JUDGMENT O.H. Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal. against the order of Mr. Justice Tandon dated the 19th March, 1958. 2. The appellant and the second respondent were candidates for election to the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. The nomination paper of the second respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the taxes due by him to the Gaon Sabha were in arrears and he was therefore disqualified under Cl. (e) of Sec. 5A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The appellant was accordingly declared to be duly elected. The second respondent then filed a petition under Sec. 12C of the Act in which he called in question the election of the appellant on the ground that his, that is the second respondent's nomination paper had been improperly rejected and that the result of the election had been materially affected thereby. The election petition was allowed, and by an order dated the 13th June, 1956, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the election of the appellant and declared a casual vacancy. The appellant then filed a petition in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he challenged the validity of that order on the ground, inter alia, that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the question of disqualification. Which ought, it was contended, to have been referred by him to the prescribed authority under Sec. 6A of the Act. That petition was dismissed by the learned Judge and the appellant now appeals. 3. The only question argued before us is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the question of disqualification. Sec. 6A of the Act provides that "If any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Secs. 5, 5-A or 5-B or in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 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." 4. Sec. 5 deals with membership of a Gaon Sabha, and Sec. 5A specifies the dis-qualifications for holding office under a Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat. Sec. 5 deals with membership of a Gaon Sabha, and Sec. 5A specifies the dis-qualifications for holding office under a Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat. Sec. 5B provides that a member of a Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as Pradhan unless he is not less than 80 years of age and sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6 states the circumstances in which a member of a Gaon Sabha shall cease to be a member. 5. Now the second respondent's election petition was filed under Sec. 12C which provides that the election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha 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 one or more of the grounds therein stated. These grounds include the allegation that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper rejection of any nomination, and it is therefore clear that the Tribunal which is the Sub-Divisional Officer, has ultimately to decide this issue. It is however contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer is obliged, in view of the provisions of Sec. 6A, to refer that question to the authority prescribed under that section. We are of opinion that this argument is not well founded. The question has come before this Court on three previous occasions. In Kashi Prasad v. Dasrath and others, 1957 A.L.J. R. 108 Mehrotra, J. held that notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 6A, it was within the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer when dealing with an election petition to investigate the question whether a candidate's nomination had been wrongly accepted or not. The same view was taken in Ram Kishan Singh v. Ram Raj Singh and another, Civil Misc. Writ No. 276 of 1957, D/d. 16.1.1957 by Mr. Justice Chaturvedi who was of opinion that the operation of Sec. 6A should be confined to cases where the question of disqualification arises otherwise than in election proceedings. The question was also considered by Mr. Justice Tandon in Raghunandan Prasad v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hamirpur and another, writ Petition No. 2064 of 1956, D/d. 29.1.1958 the learned Judge being of the view that Sec. 6A applies only to those cases where the disqualification arises after the election. 6. The question was also considered by Mr. Justice Tandon in Raghunandan Prasad v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hamirpur and another, writ Petition No. 2064 of 1956, D/d. 29.1.1958 the learned Judge being of the view that Sec. 6A applies only to those cases where the disqualification arises after the election. 6. Sec. 6A is couched in wide terms is not easy to interpret, but we are satisfied that it cannot be given the meaning attributed to it by the appellant. The argument, in short, is that its provisions are mandatory and that in every case in which a question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Secs. 5, 5A, 5B or 6 (1) the question must be referred to the prescribed authority which under R. 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules is the Tehsildar. The section, if so construed, would however then be in conflict with the provisions of R. 18C which confers upon a Returning Officer the power to scrutinise the nominations and to reject a nomination on the grounds, inter alia, that the candidate is not qualified, or that he is disqualified under Sec. 5A. It would also be in conflict with proviso (1) to R. 24 which empowers a Sub-Divisional Officer summarily to reject an election petition if he is of opinion that it has no substance. 7. Moreover rule 14 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Sub-Divisional Officer from an order made by a Tahsildar on a question referred to him under Sec. 6A, and it would accordingly follow, if the appellant's argument be correct, that if at the hearing of an election petition the ground is taken that a nomination has been improperly accepted or rejected, the Sub-Divisional Officer must refer the question to a subordinate officer, namely the Tahsildar, thereafter decide the appeal (if any) from the Tahsildar's order and finally determine the issue in accordance either with the Tahsildar's opinion or his own opinion on appeal if one has been lodged. We think it impossible to hold that such was the Legislature's intention. 8. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 12C provides that the authority, that is the Sub-Divisional Officer before whom the election petition is filed under sub-sec. We think it impossible to hold that such was the Legislature's intention. 8. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 12C provides that the authority, that is the Sub-Divisional Officer before whom the election petition is filed under sub-sec. (1) shall as regards the hearing of the petition and the procedure to be followed at such hearing, have such powers and authority as may be prescribed. Those powers are to be found in R. 25 which provides inter alia, that an election petition shall be tried as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits. No provision is made in this rule, or in any other rule in Chapter I-F relating to election petitions, for the reference of an issue as to disqualification to the prescribed authority under Sec. 6A. We are accordingly of opinion that the powers of the Sub-Divisional Officer hearing an election petition and the procedure which he shall follow there at are to be found in Sec. 12C of the Act and Chapter I-F of the Rules, and that the provisions of Sec. 6A have no application to such matters. 9. We accordingly are of opinion that the decision of the learned Judge was right and that this appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed.