K. N. SINGH, J. Laxmi Narain, petitioner No. 1, is member of Gaon Panchayat, Keotra while Ram Das, petitioner No. 2 is member of Gaon Panchayat, Chaprehta in Tahsil Bhognipur, district Kanpur. Both the petitioners were candidates for appointment as Panch of Nyaya Panchayat, Gausganj. The petitioners were, however, not appointed Panches by the District Magistrate, Kanpur; instead other persons were appointed. The petitioners thereupon filed writ petition No. 6543 of 1973 which was allowed by me on January 11, 1974 and the District Magistrate was directed to consider the petitioners case in accordance with law. Thereafter, the District Magistrate con sidered the matter again. By his order dated October 10, 1974 the District Magistrate held that the petitioner No. 2 Ram Das was not a fit and suitable person for the appointment as a Panch while petitioner No. 1 was not appointed on the ground that his name had not been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra. The District Magis trate appointed Gajodhar and Sheo Ram, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively as Panches of the Nyaya Panchayat from Gaon Pancha yat, Keotra and Ram Behari, respondent No. 4 was appointed Panch from Gaon Panchayat, Chaprehta. The petitioners have again ap proached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quash ing the order of the District Magistrate, dated October 10, 1974. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the District Magis trate committed a patent error in law in inviting fresh recommenda tions from the Gaon Panchayats although the two respective Gaon Panchayats had already submitted their unanimous recommendations which was on the file of the District Magistrate. I find force in this contention. In my earlier judgment I had referred at length the cir cumstances under which the Gaon Panchayat of Keotra and Chaprehta were required to send recommendations for appointment of Panches even though those Gaon Panchayats had already forwarded their recommendations to the District Magistrate and in that context I ob served as under: - "although the proposals were invited as early as June and July, 1972, the appointment of Panches was not made till October, 1973. As already noted the U. P. Act No. Ill of 1973 was published on January 27, 1973. As already noted the U. P. Act No. Ill of 1973 was published on January 27, 1973. Since the proviso to Section 43 of the Act con ferred power on the District Magistrate to appoint a person, who may not be a member of the Gaon Panchayat, the Director of Panchayat Raj issued a circular letter to all the District Magis trates on February 13, 1973, bringing the amended provision of Section 43 to their notice, a copy of that letter is on the file of the District Magistrate, Kanpur, relating to the appointment of Panches which has been produced by the learned Standing Coun sel. A perusal of that letter dated February 13, 1973, shows that in Paragraph 4 it was stated that if the proposals for appointment of Panches had already been completed then in that case fresh proposals need not be obtained from Panchayats but in case where due to shortage of time or due to any other reason proposals could not be obtained, fresh proposals may be obtained before March 15, 1973, and thereafter, the appointment of Panches be completed after consulting the Advisory Committee. On receipt of that letter the District Magistrate, Kanpur, under some mis apprehension invited fresh proposals from Gaon Sabhas, Chap rehta and Keotra as well as from other Gaon Panchayats, although their proposals had already been received. " In view of the above observations it was not open to the District Magistrate to ask for fresh recommendations of the aforesaid two Gaon Panchayats, viz. , Keotra and Chaprehta. There is no provision either under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act or the Rules framed there under to ask for repeated recommendations even though the recom mendations had already been sent by the Panchayats, the reason for inviting the second recommendation was that the District Magistrate on receipt of a letter of the Director of Panchayats erroneously thought that fresh recommendations were necessary to be called. Similarly after my judgment, when the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, he again committed the same mistake and invited fresh recommendations from the aforesaid two Gaon Panchayats. In the result there were three different recommendations before the District Magistrate made by each of the two Gaon Panchayats. Similarly after my judgment, when the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, he again committed the same mistake and invited fresh recommendations from the aforesaid two Gaon Panchayats. In the result there were three different recommendations before the District Magistrate made by each of the two Gaon Panchayats. The first re commendation was made by a resolution of the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, on May 30, 1972, while the second recommendation was made on March 15, 1973 and the third recommendation was made on May 21, 1974. It is interesting to note that that every time the Gaon Pan chayat was required to make recommendations, it made changes in its recommendations with the result the recommendations went on changing from time to time. It is a matter of common knowledge that the group alliance and politics in the village goes on changing, so if repeated recommendations are invited from Gaon Panchayats it will be difficult to ascertain the correct desire and wish of the Gaon Panchayat. The District Magistrate failed to appreciate that in my judgment I had observed that the District Magistrate was not justifi ed in inviting second recommendations when the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, had already recommended the name of petitioner No. ], Laxmi Narain by its resolution dated May 30, 1972. Similarly the District Magistrate was not justified in asking for a fresh recommendation from Gaon Panchayat, Chaprehta after my earlier judgment. The District Magistrate, Kanpur, has observed in his order that since the name of petitioner No. 1 had not been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, he did not consider him suitable for appointment as Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat. The District Magistrate committed a patent error. In my earlier judgment I had clearly recorded a finding that the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra. had un animously resolved to recommend the petitioner No. 1, Laxmi Narain and Sheo Ram for appointment as Panches. Those findings were given by me on a perusal of the original records and proceedings of the Gaon Panchayat relating to appointment of Panches as maintain ed in the office of the District Magistrate. Those findings became final as no appeal was preferred by the District Magistrate or by any other affected party. Those findings were given by me on a perusal of the original records and proceedings of the Gaon Panchayat relating to appointment of Panches as maintain ed in the office of the District Magistrate. Those findings became final as no appeal was preferred by the District Magistrate or by any other affected party. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to ignore those findings and to proceed on the assumption that the name of Laxmi Narain, petitioner No. 1 had not been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat. In fact the earlier petition was allowed mainly on the ground that the unanimous recommendation made by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra was not given due weight as required by Rule 83 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, therefore the appointment of Panches was illegal and it was for that reason that the District Magistrate, Kanpur, was directed to reconsider the case of petitioner No. 1. But even thereafter the District Magistrate acted illegally in recording a finding that the petitioner No. 1 had been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra. Once a finding was recorded by this Court in the earlier writ petition to the effect that the name of petitioner No. 1 had unanimously been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, it was not open to the District Magistrate to go behind that finding and to reject the petitioners claim on the ground that his name had not been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra. The District Magistrate has not filed any counter affidavit nor the writ petition is contested on his behalf, instead the writ petition has been contested by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, had not passed any resolution on June 30, 1972 recommending the name of petitioner No. 1 for appointment as Panch. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the averments contained in para graphs 13 to 17 of the counter affidavit filed by Kailash Nath Sharma and a copy of the resolution of Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, dated June 30, 1972 has been filed as Annexure CA-2 to the affidavit of Kailash Nath Sharma. It is noteworthy that Kailash Nath is not a party to the petition, he was not present in the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, held on May 30, 1972. It is noteworthy that Kailash Nath is not a party to the petition, he was not present in the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, held on May 30, 1972. He has no personal knowledge about the discussion held therein or the decision which was taken on that date. On the other hand petitioner No. 1 was present in the meeting, he has sworn on his personal knowledge. None of the contesting res pondents have filed their own affidavits nor the affidavit of any per son who may have been present at the meeting of Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, on June 30, 1972 has been filed to support the contention. No reliance can be placed on Kailash Naths version. A perusal of An nexure CA-2 which purports to be unanimous resolution of the Gaon Panchayat itself shows that the members of Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, unanimously resolved that the names of those persons should be for warded to the higher authorities for appointments as Panches who have given their consent. By this resolution the members of the Gaon Panchayat unanimously recommended that the names of those per sons who have given their consent for appointment as Panches should be considered by the higher authorities for appointment. This resolu tion therefore made recommendations in favour of those persons who may have given their consent for appointment as Panches. The peti tioner has asserted that he had given his consent and the same had been forwarded to the District Magistrate. This assertion of the peti tioner is further supported by the findings recorded by me in my ear lier judgment. As already stated at the time of hearing of the earlier writ petition No. 6543 of 1973, the original records of the original re cords of the District Magistrate had been prodoced before me by the Standing Counsel and it was on a perusal of that record that I record ed findings that the recommendations made by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra, in favour of Laxmi Narain, petitioner No. 1, was not consider ed by the District Magistrate. The following extract from my judgment would make the position further clear: - "it is noteworthy that the earlier recommendation sent under the unanimous resolution of the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra was not placed before the District Magistrate nor he had any occasion to consider the same, with the result the name of Laxmi Narain was never considered by the District Magistrate. " Further while considering the recommendations of the Advisory Com mittee, I observed:- "it is true that the Advisory Committee considered the names of the petitioners also while making recommendations to the Dis trict Magistrate for appointment of Panches along with the names of Ghasite, Hira and Ram Singh and one Devi Singh. But under sub-rule (8) of Rule 83 the District Magistrate is required to take into consideration not only the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but also any other material that may come to his no tice and he is further required to give due weight to the unani mous resolution of the Gaon Panchayat. It is not denied that in both the cases of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 the Gaon Panchayat had made unanimous resolution. These facts were not brought to the notice of the District Magistrate and he had no occasion to consider the same. " In view of the aforesaid findings and the material on record I am of the view that it was proved beyond any doubt that the petitioners name (Laxnii Narain) had been recommended by the Gaon Pancha yat, Keotra at its meeting held on June 30, 1972 and the recommenda tion along with his consent was present on the record of the District Magistrate and for that reason the Advisory Committee had considered his name but the District Magistrate did not give any due weight to the unanimous resolution and recommendation of the Gaon Pancha yat and for that reason the appointment of Panch from the members of Gaon Panchayat, Keotra was quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner No. 1 had never been recommended by the Gaon Panchayat, Keotra and the District Magistrate, therefore, rightly observed that petitioner "no. 1 was not suitable for appointment. I have already observed that the assertions made by Kailash Nath are not worthy of any reliance. Further the resolution of the Gaon Panchayat dated June 30. 1 was not suitable for appointment. I have already observed that the assertions made by Kailash Nath are not worthy of any reliance. Further the resolution of the Gaon Panchayat dated June 30. 1972 (Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) it self shows that the recom mendation was made in favour of those persons who had given con sent for appointment as Panches. The petitioner No. 1 has categori cally stated that he had given his consent and his name was forward ed. Further the findings recorded by me on the basis of perusal of original records produced by the learned standing counsel in the ear lier writ petition cannot be reopened, merely because Kailash Nath, a pairokar of the respondents has sworn affidavit that the name of the petitioner No. 1 had not been recommended by the Gaon Pan chayat. The District Magistrate observed that Ram Das, petitioner No. 2, was not a fit person for appointment as Panch and for that reason his claim was rejected. It appears that Ram Das had made an applica tion for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta and in that application he had not filed declaration that his name was not included in any other Gaon Sabha of the Assembly constituency. A controversy was raised before the District Magis trate by those persons who were opposed to the appointment of Ram Das. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 wrongly got his name included in the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta. While con sidering that question the District Magistrate held that since Ram Das had failed to give the necessary declaration in his application for inclusion of his name, he committed misconduct, as well as criminal offence for which he was liable to be punished. It was on this account that the District Magistrate observed that Ram Das was not a fit per son for appointment as Panch. The District Magistrate again com mitted error. Section 9 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act lays down that electo ral roll prepared in accordance with the Representation of People Act, 1950, for any Assembly constituency shall be deemed to be the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha. The District Magistrate again com mitted error. Section 9 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act lays down that electo ral roll prepared in accordance with the Representation of People Act, 1950, for any Assembly constituency shall be deemed to be the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha. Section 5 of the Act lays down that every person whose name for the time being is included in the electo ral roll for Gaon Sabha shall be a member of the Gaon Sabha. Thus a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll for the Assembly Constituency prepared under the 1950 Act relating to the Gaon Sabha is entitled to be member of the Gaon Sabha, thereupon it is not open to any authority to question the legality or illegality of the inclusion of the name of such a person in the electoral roll. The Representa tion of People Act, 1950, and the Rules framed there under are self- contained Code which provide remedy against the wrongful inclusion of names as well as deletion of names from the electoral roll. No au thority or court is entitled to question the legality or illegality of in clusion or deletion of a name from the electoral roll as would appear from Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. In Pampa-kavi Rayapva Belagali v. R. D. Jatti and others A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1348, it was held that the scheme of Representation of People Act, 1950 shows that the en tries made in an electoral roll for a Constituency can only be chal lenged in accordance with the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any other forum unless the question of violation of the provisions of the Constitution is involved, therefore, the question whether the returned candidate was ordinarily" resident in the constituency under Section 19 (b) of the Act of 1950, could not be the subject-matter of enquiry in election petition before a Tribunal or before the High Court. . The principles laid down in the above case would equally apply to the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and therefore it was not open to the District Magistrate to en quire into the legality or illegality of the inclusion of the name of Ram Das in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta. . The principles laid down in the above case would equally apply to the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and therefore it was not open to the District Magistrate to en quire into the legality or illegality of the inclusion of the name of Ram Das in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the District Magistrate did not hold any enquiry against Ram Das to ascertain the legality or illegality of the inclusion of his name in the electoral roll, instead he considered the petitioners conduct in giving false declara tion as required by the 1950 Act and the Rules framed there under in the column meant for the purpose in the prescribed form. I do not find any merit in this contention. A perusal of the order of the Dis trict Magistrate, Annexure A, to the writ petition shows that while considering the case of Ram Das the District Magistrate noted the various allegations made against Ram Das which were to the effect that even though Ram Das was not resident of Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta, but he exercised some undue influence, and got his name included in the electoral roll of that Gaon Sabha, although his name was already on the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Gausganj. The District Magistrate referred to the allegations and thereafter he observed:- (the relevant portion of the order as translated into English runs as under) "the action of Ram Das in making an application for the in clusion of his name in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta without disclosing the fact that his name was already in the elec toral roll of Gaon Sabha, Gausganj, amounted to offence under Section 21 of the 1950 Act. The application of Sri Ram Das is on record. On a perusal of that application, I am satisfied that he did not state the fact that his name was already on the electoral roll of Gausganj even though there was an express provision for such a declaration in the application form itself. In this way Sri Ram Das Gupta made application for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of Chaprehta which is against the Rules. In this way Sri Ram Das Gupta made application for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of Chaprehta which is against the Rules. I am therefore of the opinion that a person who makes application by concealment of facts for the purpose of strengthening his case is not a fit person for appointment as Panch of Nyaya Panchayat and for that reason I am not appointing him Panch. Separate proceedings will be taken against him under the Representation of People Act, 1950 for his prosecution. " The above observations of the District Magistrate clearly shows that he was convinced that Ram Das Gupta got his name wrongly in cluded in the electoral roll of Chaprehta and for that reason he was guilty for an offence punishable under the Representation of People Act, 1950. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold that the petitioner was guilty of offence or that he was liable to prosecution. The District Magistrate transgressed his jurisdiction in sending a copy of this order to the Electoral Roll Officer for necessary action obviously with a purpose to initiate proceedings against Ram Das Gupta for his prosecution. The above discussion make it clear that Ram Das Gupta was not found suitable merely because he had omitted to fill up declaration in the prescribed form meant for inclusion of names in the electoral roll. If the petitioner failed to make necessary declaration, it was open to the authority concerned to reject his re quest, and to reject his application but the Electoral Registration Au thority itself accepted his claim and included his name in the electo ral roll. Thereafter it was not open to the District Magistrate to im pute any motive of his honesty or misconduct to Ram Das Gupta. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll, to ascertain the manner and the legality of the inclusion of petitioners name in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chaprehta. Once the name of Sri Ram Das Gupta was on the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chap rehta, he was legally a member of that Gaon Sabha. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll to hold enquiry about the manner or legality of the inclusion of the name of Ram Das. Once the name of Sri Ram Das Gupta was on the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chap rehta, he was legally a member of that Gaon Sabha. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll to hold enquiry about the manner or legality of the inclusion of the name of Ram Das. Moreover, the name of Ram Das had been recommended un animously under a resolution of the Gaon Panchayat, Chaprehta, it was not open to the District Magistrate to reject that recommendation on the ground that Ram Das Gupta had not given correct particulars in his application filed before the Electoral Officer for the in clusion of his name in the electoral roll of Chaprheta. If this en quiry is permitted the finality of electoral roll as intended by the Legislature would be violated. I, therefore, hold that the District Magistrate committed a patent error of law in refusing to appoint Ram Das Gupta as Panch on extraneous conside rations. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various docu ments and applications to show his bona fides in making application for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of Gaon Sabha, Chap rehta, on the other hand, respondents counsel referred to the aver ments contained in the counter affidavit to show that Ram Das Gupta had deliberately got his name included in the electoral roll of Chaprehta in a suruptitious manner. I do not consider it necessary to resolve this controversy. In my opinion, once the name of Ram Das Gupta was on the electoral roll, it was not open for the District Ma gistrate to go behind that entry or to hold an enquiry about the cor rectness of the statement made by him in his application filed before the Electoral Registration Officer. " In view of the above discussion I allow the petition partly and quash the order of the District Magistrate, dated October 10, 1974. The appointment of Gajodhar, respondent No. 3 and Ram Behari, res pondent No. 4 is quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to re consider and decide the petitioners case in the light of the observa tions made in this judgment. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. .