JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of an election dispute. Daryao Singh, petitioner and Mohan Lal, respondent No. 2 were candidates for election to the office of Pradhan of a certain Gaon Sabha. According to the counting of votes at the end of the poll, Daryao Singh obtained 175 votes; and Mohan Lal got 165 votes. Daryao Singh was, there-fore, declared elected Pradhan. 2. Mohan Lal filed an election petition challenging Daryao Singh's election. The Tribunal concluded that mistakes of various kinds had been committed in receiving and counting votes. It was found that nine women, who had voted for Daryao Singh, were not residents of the area. The Tribunal concluded that those nine women were not entitled to participate in the election. After deducting those nine votes and other adjustment, the Tribunal found that Mohan Lal had received more votes than Daryao Singh. On this view, the Tribunal set aside Daryao Singh's election, and declared Mohan Lal elected Pradhan. Hence this writ petition by Daryao Singh. 3. The question of votes of the nine women was discussed by the Tribunal under issue No. 1. The Tribunal found that although the nine women were not residents of the area, their names were on the electoral roll. The Tribunal concluded that, under the circumstances the nine women could not participate in the election. Correctness of that view has been challenged in the writ petition. 4. The question whether the nine women were entitled to vote has to be decided in the light of various provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). Sec. 5 of the Act deals with member-ship of Gaon Sabha. A Gaon Sabha shall consist of all adults ordinarily residents within the area for which it is established. Sec. 6 provides for cessation of membership. Sec. 9 provides for registration of members. Sec. 9 was amended from time to time. Originally, there was no sub-Sec. (2) in Sec. 9. Sec. 9 was amended by U.P. Act No. XV of 1960, which came into force in August 1960. Sec. 9 was again amended by U.P. Act No. III of 1961, which came into force in March 1961. Election in the present case took place in January 1961. We have, therefore, to consider Sec. 9, as it stood in January 1961. Sec. 9 was amended by U.P. Act No. XV of 1960, which came into force in August 1960. Sec. 9 was again amended by U.P. Act No. III of 1961, which came into force in March 1961. Election in the present case took place in January 1961. We have, therefore, to consider Sec. 9, as it stood in January 1961. In other words, we have to consider Sec. 9 as amended by U.P. Act No. XV of 1960. By Sec. 3 of U.P. Act No. XV of 1960, the following was inserted as sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9 of the principal Act: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no person who is not, and every person who is, for the time being entered in the register as member, shall be entitled to vote at any election or in any other proceeding under this Act or the rules framed thereunder, or to be elected, nominated or appointed to any office in the Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat." 5. Sec. 11-B of the Act provides for election and term of Pradhan. According to Sec. 11-B, the Pradhan shall be elected by the members of the Gaon Sabha from amongst themselves in such manner as may be prescribed. 6. The Tribunal has found that the nine women were not ordinarily residents of the area. So, under Sec. 5 of the Act, they were not members of the Gaon Sabha. On the one hand, they were not entitled to participate in the election according to Sec. 11-B of the Act. On the other hand, according to Sec. 9 of the Act, they were entitled to vote, as their names were entered in the register of members. 7. The Tribunal has referred to Lalu v. Umrao, 1961 A.L.J. 6. It was held in that case that, Rule 19-B was inconsistent with the Act, and was invalid. In the present case we are not concerned with any rule framed under the Act. We are faced with the apparent conflict between Secs. 9 and 11-B of the Act. In Lalu Ram's case there was a passing reference to Sec. 9 of the Act. But Sec. 9 was not quoted or discussed in the judgment. 8. In Amar Nath Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Gyanpur, 1959 A.L.J. 205 the question was whether a certain person's age was below 30 years. 9 and 11-B of the Act. In Lalu Ram's case there was a passing reference to Sec. 9 of the Act. But Sec. 9 was not quoted or discussed in the judgment. 8. In Amar Nath Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Gyanpur, 1959 A.L.J. 205 the question was whether a certain person's age was below 30 years. It was held that it was the Sub-Divisional Officer who could go into that question, and Sec. 6-A of the Act had no application to such a dispute. That case was decided in 1958 - long before sub-Sec. (2) was inserted in Sec. 9 of the Act. 9. In Babu Ram v. State of U.P., 1959 A.L.J. 457 it was held that, entries in the register of members are not conclusive, and the Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to decide the question about the correct age of the person elected and is not bound to accept entries in the register of members as correct. That case was decided in 1959 - before amendment of Sec. 9 by U.P. Act No. XV of 1960. 10. In Debi Dayal v. Ulfat Shah, 1960 A.L.J. Summary of Cases page 8 it was held that Rule 5(2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, which has the effect of enabling a person to be elected Pradhan, is beyond the powers of the State Government. In the first place, we are not concerned with R. 5 (2) in the present case. Secondly, Debi Dayal's case was decided before sub-Sec. (2) was inserted in Sec. 9 of the Act by U.P. Amendment Act No. XV of 1960. 11. In P. Kunhiraman v. V.R. Krishna Iyer, AIR 1962 Kerala 190 it was held by a Full Bench of Kerala High Court that, in the case of a person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who has exercised his vote, the Election Tribunal can go into the question whether or not he had attained the age of twenty-one on the qualifying date, and on the finding that he had not excluded his vote from the count. 12. That was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned Judges referred to Article 326 of the Constitution. According to Article 326, election is to be based on adult suffrage. In the present case Article 326 of the Constitution has no application. 12. That was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned Judges referred to Article 326 of the Constitution. According to Article 326, election is to be based on adult suffrage. In the present case Article 326 of the Constitution has no application. Whether the nine women in question were entitled to vote or not has to be decided under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 13. In Shukdev Singh v. Nirvachan Nirdeshak, 1961 R.D. (H.C.) 179 it was held that, one of the rules of interpretation of statutes is that where self-conflicting provisions exist in the same enactment, the latter provision shall prevail. That principle would have had some importance, had the two conflicting provisions in the Act been on the statute book from the very beginning. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9 and Sec. 11-B are both the result of subsequent amendments. Sec. 11-B of the Act was inserted by Act No. II of 1955. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9 of the Act was inserted by U.P. Act No. XV of 1960. When sub-Sec. (2) was inserted in Sec. 9 of the Act in 1960, the Legislature was aware of the general provision contained in Sec. 11-B of the Act. 14. Mohiuddin v. The Election Tribunal for Town Area, 1959 A.L.J. 169 is a Full Bench decision of this Court. It was held by a majority of the Full Bench that, the Election Tribunal hearing an election petition challenging the election of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee cannot look into the contention that the names of certain persons should not have found a place in the electoral rolls prepared for certain wards in the Town Area on the grounds that some of them were minors and that some did not reside within the wards concerned. The right to vote is not on account of a person having attained a certain age or on account of his having resided in a certain constituency in the prescribed period, but is conferred by sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 6-F of the Town Areas Act and is simply based on account of the existence of his name in the electoral roll of any ward. The vote of a person having a right to vote is, therefore, a lawful vote, and it is, therefore, not open to the Election Tribunal to go behind the electoral roll to determine whether the entry of a person's name in the electoral roll was rightly made or not. 15. Mohiuddin's case was under the Town Areas Act; while the present case is under the Panchayat Raj Act. So Mohiuddin's case has no direct application to the present case. But the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision is of some assistance in interpreting Sec. 9(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 16. The conflict between Secs. 9 (2) and 11-B arises in this way. According to Sec. 9(2), the nine women are entitled to vote on the ground that, their names were entered in the register of members. On the other hand, the nine women were not qualified under Sec. 11-B of the Act for the purpose of electing a Pradhan. It appears that Sec. 11-B is a provision of a general nature. It merely lays down the general procedure for election of a Pradhan. The question whether a certain person is entitled to vote or not has to be decided in the light of Sec. 9(2) of the Act. When a person claims the right to vote, the Returning Officer may be faced with a controversy that a certain person is sot entitled to vote on the ground that he is not a resident of the area. The Returning Officer will find considerable difficulty in deciding the question of residence upon a summary enquiry. Sec. 9(2) was inserted in the Act to put an end to such difficulties. If a person's name is on the register of members, he became entitled to vote notwithstanding the fact that he did not possess some basic qualification. In the present case the nine women did not possess the basic qualification of residence under Sec. 5 of the Act. But their names were entered in the register of members. So, under Sec. 9(2) of the Act, they were entitled to vote. The Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the votes of the nine women. 17. If we count the nine votes in Daryao Singh's favour, Daryao Singh retains his lead over Mohan Lal. The Tribunal committed a clear error of law in supposing that, Mohan Lal obtained more votes than Daryao Singh. The Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the votes of the nine women. 17. If we count the nine votes in Daryao Singh's favour, Daryao Singh retains his lead over Mohan Lal. The Tribunal committed a clear error of law in supposing that, Mohan Lal obtained more votes than Daryao Singh. 18. Mr. Rajeshji Verma appearing for Mohan Lal contended that, the Court should not interfere in the present case on the ground that Mohan Lal received more valid votes than the petitioner. That contention is based on the assumption that votes of the nine women were invalid. As discussed above, that assumption is not correct. The true position is that, those nine votes are valid, although the nine women are not residents of the area. Since Daryao Singh obtained a majority of valid votes, there was no good reason for setting aside his election. 19. The petition is allowed. The order of respondent No. 1 dated 5-4-1962 is quashed. The stay order dated 25-4-1962 is vacated. The petitioner shall get costs in this Court from respondent No. 2.