JUDGMENT R.S. Pathak, J. - The petitioner and the second respondent contested the election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Sabha Barwadih in the district of Deoria. The election took place on April 10, 1963, and as a result of the polling the petitioner was declared to have secured 78 votes while the second respondent was declared to have secured 77 votes, and therefore the petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan. An election petition was filed by the second respondent. It was tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoria. The Sub-Divisional Officer found upon a re-counting of votes that one invalid vote had been counted in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the rival candidate had secured as equal number of votes. In the circumstances, he allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by this petition for certiorari. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon finding that an equal number of votes had been cast in favour of the petitioner and the second respondent, should have followed the procedure set out in rule 25(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules and decided which candidate should be declared elected by the drawing of lots. It is urged that the Sub-Divisional Officer should then, upon the result of that determination, have decided whether the petitioner's election should be set aside or not. I am unable to accept the contention. Rule 25 sets out the jurisdiction of the Sub-Division Officer in the hearing and deciding of an election petition. The procedure to be followed by him, declare sub-rule (1) is that applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits. Sub-Rule (2) provides that if the Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing finds that the election was valid he must dismiss the petition. Sub-Rule (3) declares that if the Sub-Divisional Officer finds that the election was invalid he must either declare a casual vacancy to have been created or declare another candidate to have been duly elected only one of the two courses is open to him, and he must choose one of these two courses accordingly as it appears to him to be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case. Upon finding that the rival candidate had secured an equal number of votes, it is indisputable that the Sub-Divisional Officer could not but find that the declaration that the petitioner had been elected was liable to be set aside and that the election was invalid. The election result was declared by the Nirvachan Adhikari under Rule 21 Q. It was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon finding that the votes cast in favour of the two candidates were equal in number, to pursue the procedure set out in Rule 21 P and then determine whether the election declared by the Nirvachan Adhikari was valid or invalid. The election declared by the Nirvachan Adhikari turned upon the result of the procedure followed by that officer, and the validity of that election could not be determined by reference to any further procedure followed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Having found that the number of votes cast in favour of the two candidates were equal, the Sub-Divisional Officer had necessarily to find that the election of the petitioner was invalid and then to determine whether under Cl. (a) of sub-Rule (3) he should declare that a casual vacancy had been created or under Cl. (b) of that sub-Rule to declare that the second respondent had been duly elected. In the particular circumstances of the case, the number of votes being equal, he could not have declared the second respondent to have been duly elected. The only course open to him was to declare that a casual vacancy had been created. That in effect is what he did and therefore no fault can be found with the order made by him. 3. The provisions of sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 25 may be contrasted with the corresponding provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Sec. 98 of the Act provides that at the conclusion of the trial of an election petition the Tribunal shall make an order either dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. Then follows the provision setting out the procedure to be followed in case of an equality of votes. Then follows the provision setting out the procedure to be followed in case of an equality of votes. Sec. 102 provides that if during the trial of an election petition it appears that there is an equality of votes between any candidates at an election and that the addition of a vote would entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, then the decision made by the Returning Officer under the provisions of the Act in so far as it determined the question between those candidates would be effective also for the purposes of the petition and if that question has not been determined by such decision then the Tribunal has been specifically empowered to decide the question by lot and proceed as if the one on whom the lot then falls had received an additional vote. A corresponding power has not been conferred upon the Sub-Divisional Officer by rule 258 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. 4. Accordingly, the petition must fail. 5. The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.