JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Premlata for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31-8-1956 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shikohabad, respondent no. 2, whereby the election petition of Rajendra Pati Yadav, respondent no. 1, against the election of 'the petitioner as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha of Bharaul was allowed, the election of the petitioner was set aside and a casual vacancy was declared to be filled in by a fresh election. 2. One of the points raised against the maintainability of the election petition was that it had not been properly presented. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer recorded a finding that the rules permitted the presentation of an application under Sec. 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, that is, an election petition, by the counsel for the applicant. In the present case, the election petition had not been presented by Rajendra Pati Yadav, but was presented by his counsel before the Sub Divisional Officer Shikohabad. The question of the maintainability of the election petition has also been raised in the present proceeding. The question for consideration, therefore, is if an election petition under Sec.. 12-C must be presented by the candidate in person or presentation by his counsel can be considered to be proper. 3. Under Rule 25 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules every election petition has to be tried, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits. This general clause is subject to the restriction that any provision contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act or the rules contained in Chapter I-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules shall not be applicable. The trial of a suit starts after the presentation of the plaint, and consequently the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure for the presentation of plaint will not apply to election petitions. It may, however, be mentioned that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure make a differentiation between the party and his agent. The trial of a suit starts after the presentation of the plaint, and consequently the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure for the presentation of plaint will not apply to election petitions. It may, however, be mentioned that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure make a differentiation between the party and his agent. Certain specified acts have to be done by the party concerned in person, for example, an application to sue in forma pauperzs, but for other acts no clear provision has been made suggesting thereby that such acts can be done either by the party himself or by his agent. 4. The term "candidate" has not been defined in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. But if the provisions of the Act are given a proper meaning, the term "candidate" will not, on each and every case, include his agent. Proceedings arising out of an election petition are treated a quasi criminal proceedings in which the charge must be established beyond doubt and the election of a person cannot be set aside unless all the ingredients are established, for example, while defining the corrupt practice of bribery and undue influence it is mentioned that such corrupt practice should be committed by the candidate or any other person with the connivance of the candidate. Consequently, if an election agent is guilty of corrupt practice without the connivance of the candidate, the election cannot be set aside for the reason that it will not amount to a corrupt practice of bribery and undue influence as defined in the Act. In other words for purposes of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, candidate shall not include an agent. This finds corroboration from Sec. 81 of the Act also which lays down that any party to a civil or criminal or revenue case may appear before a Nyaya Panchayat either in person or by a servant, partner, relation or friend duly authorised in writing by him. In case the word "person" -included his agent also, it was not necessary to lay down in Sec. 81 that a person could appear by his agent. 5. The rules framed by the State Government as contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules also lead us to the same inference. Rule 24 (2) can usefully be compared with Rules 4-H and 18. 5. The rules framed by the State Government as contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules also lead us to the same inference. Rule 24 (2) can usefully be compared with Rules 4-H and 18. Rule 24 (2) lays down that the election petition may be presented by any candidate, while under Rule 18 (1) the nomination paper has to be delivered to the Returning Officer by the candidate in person or by his agent. If the term "candidate" included his agent, it was not necessary to provide in this rule that the nomination paper could be delivered by the agent of the candidate. Rule 4-H governs the filing of claims or objections against the provisional Register of members, that is, the list of persons entitled to vote. It is laid down in the proviso to sub-rule (2) of this rule that a person may file any number of claims or objections including those on behalf of others by one petition. While filing a claim or objection on behalf of others, the applicant acts as their agent. In other words, for the purposes of filing claims or objections to the provisional list of voters, an agent can act for the principal. 6. It is thus apparent that in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and also in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules a differentiation has been made between a candidate and his agent, and consequently when an act can be done by the candidate only, it shall be deemed that it must be done by him, and not by or through his agent. 7. As indicated above, under Rule 24 (2) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, an application under Sec. 10-C of the Act has to be presented by a candidate in whose favour votes had been recorded. It was not provided that the application could be presented by an agent of the candidate. The election law is a special law in the sense that it provides for a remedy complete in itself for challenging the result of the election, and it must be construed strictly. In other words, an election petition under Sec. 12-C should be presented in person by the candidate, and if it is presented by his agent, it will not be proper presentation. In the present case, the election petition was not presented by respondent no. In other words, an election petition under Sec. 12-C should be presented in person by the candidate, and if it is presented by his agent, it will not be proper presentation. In the present case, the election petition was not presented by respondent no. 1, and consequently it should not have been entertained and in any case, it could not be allowed. 8. The present petitioner had challenged the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent no. 2, on other grounds also, but as the election petition is being held not to be maintainable, it is not necessary to record any finding on those points. 9. The petition is hereby allowed, and it is ordered that a writ of certiorari he issued to quash the above order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The election petition preferred by Rajendra Patti Yadav, respondent no. 1, shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the present petitioner duly declared: as Pradhan of the above Gaon Sabha Costs on parties. The stay order is vacated.