JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Munna Singh for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15-1-1957 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chata, respondent no. 2, whereby the election petition preferred under Sec. 12-D of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by Narain Singh, respondent no. 1, against the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat of Ranwat was allowed, the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was set aside and a casual vacancy was declared in the office of this post. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute, and the only question of law involved is whether the petitioner was disqualified to be chosen as Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat. 3. The petitioner and also Narain Singh, respondent no. 1 are two of the elected members of the Gaon Panchayat and the District Magistrate appointed them as Panches of the Nyaya Panchayat under order dated 29-5-1956. On 30-9-1956 the election of the two Sarpanches was conducted when the names of the two were proposed and Munna Singh was declared elected on his securing seven votes against three by respondent no. 1. 4. Narain Singh, respondent no. 1, preferred an election petition to challenge the election of the petitioner; and the learned Sub-Division Officer was of opinion that out of the seven voters who gave their vote for the petitioner, two had not to pay any tax, that is, were not in arrears, three were in arrears and paid taxes in October 1956 after the election and two, namely, Udaipal and Munna Singh, petitioner, paid the arrears of taxes on 6-8-1956. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer was also of opinion that under Rule 15 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules only two votes cast by those who were not to pay any tax, could be considered as volid. Munna Singh was thus held to have been disqualified to stand for election and his election as Sarpanch was set aside. 5. There is no controversy with regard to the disqualification of three voters who paid the arrears of taxes in October 1956, and the eligibility of two who were not in arrears to participate in the election. 6. The votes cast by voters of the first group shall have to be treated as invalid. 5. There is no controversy with regard to the disqualification of three voters who paid the arrears of taxes in October 1956, and the eligibility of two who were not in arrears to participate in the election. 6. The votes cast by voters of the first group shall have to be treated as invalid. However, if the remaining four are taken into consideration, the petitioner would have secured four votes against three and would have been elected by a majority of one vote. As Udaipal and Munna Singh, petitioners, stand in the same category, the question which may be considered is whether Munna Singh was qualified to stand for election as Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat. If he was qualified to be elected Sarpanch, both he and Udaipal would have been qualified to act as Panches of the Nyaya Panchayat and to cast vote for the petitioner. 7. Sec. 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act lays down the disqualifications for holding office under Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat. It lays down that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat, or the Nyaya Panchayat constituted under Sec. 42, if he is in arrears of tax, fee or rate due by him to the Gaon Sabha for such period as may be prescribed. Under the second proviso, the above disqualification ceases to exist upon payment of the arrears. Consequently as soon as the arrears of tax, fee or rate are paid, the person though originally disqualified becomes qualified for election and to hold office under the above public institutions. The second point of importance in connection with the interpretation of clause (e) of Sec. .011. 5-A is that the power given to the State Government to make rules is with regard to the period for which one should not be in arrears. Unlimited rule making power has not been conferred on the State Government. Consequently, if under a rule framed by the State Government, any restriction is placed which is in conflict with the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Act, that rule would be ultra vires of the State Government and would be void and ineffective. In the present case, no one challenged the election of the petitioner and also of Udipal as a member of the Gaon Panchayat. In the present case, no one challenged the election of the petitioner and also of Udipal as a member of the Gaon Panchayat. The election could have been challenged by making an application under Sec. 12-C of the Act. Their appointment as Panches of the Nyaya Panchayat was also not challenged. This could be done by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 25 of the Constitution. Respondent no. 1 apparently raised the question of disqualification after he was un-successful at the election and was not elected Sarpanch; but both Udipal and Munna Singh had paid the arrears of taxes long be-fore the date of election and the disqualification placed under Sec. 5-A ceased to exist. In other words, on the date of election, that is, on 30-9-1956 Munna Singh was entitled to stand for election and both Udipal and Munna Singh could cast votes in favour of the petitioner. 8. In case the election of Munna Singh and others, who were in arrears as members of the Gaon Panchayat or their appointment as Panches of the Nyaya Panchayat was challenged at the appropriate time, their election or appointment would have been set aside, but not at a belated stage when the disqualification ceased to exist. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has placed reliance upon Rule 15 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules which runs as below:- "15. Disqualification on account of non payment of tax, etc. (1) A person shall be disqualified under clause (e) of Sec. 5-A of the Act for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat or the Nyaya Panchayat, if he is in arrears of any tax, fee or rate due by him to the Sabha on the 31st day of March, in the year immediately preceding the year in which an election is held:- Provided that in the case of General Elections held during the year 1955-56, the date aforesaid shall be 31st day of March, 1954." 9. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be correct. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer did not give any importance to the word 'due' existing between the words "rate" and "by him." 10. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be correct. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer did not give any importance to the word 'due' existing between the words "rate" and "by him." 10. The correct interpretation of the rule if considered in a proper perspective would be that if all the taxes, fee or rate due upto 31st of March have not been paid, the person would be disqualified upto the date the taxes etc. are not paid. The date mentioned in the rule does not lay down the date on which the person should not be in arrears. The date prescribes the expiry of the period for which taxes must be paid before any one can stand for election or can be appointed as Panch. The State Government was given the rule making power to this extent only. Further, if the rule is capable of two interpretations, that view should be adopted which is reasonable and is at the same time in consonance with the provisions of the Act, otherwise the rule shall have to be declared ultra vires and ineffective. 11. To sum up the disqualification under clause (e) of Sec. 5-A ceases to exist as soon as the arrears upto the preceding 31st of March have been paid. In the present case, two voters who voted for petitioner, were not in arrears and another two voters had paid their taxes before the election of the Sarpanch; and consequently on the date of the nomination and election of Sarpanch the petitioner was qualified to stand for election as such and he and also Udipar had the right to cast their vote in the election. In other words, the petitioner secured four valid votes against three by the respondent no. 1, and the petitioner was rightly declared to have been elected as Sarpanch. The decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer to the contrary is against the law and can be set aside by this Court. 12. The petition is hereby allowed with costs payable by respondent No. 1 and it is ordered that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the above order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The election petition preferred by Narain Singh, respondent no. 1, shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner duly elected as Sarpanch of the above Nyaya Panchayat.