JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, J. Dwarika, the Petitioner, and Shiv Raj Singh, respdt. No. 2, were candidates for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Majhgaon, Distt. Hardoi. The election to this office was held on 20th April, 1972. Of the votes cast, the Petitioner secured 376 votes while the Respondent obtained 369 votes. The Petitioner was declared as duly elected Pradhan. 2. The Respondent filed an election petition. Two principal grounds were taken; firstly, that the counting was not done in accordance with law; and, in the next place, that the blind and infirm persons did not cast their votes in accordance with the prescribed procedure, inasmuch as the helpers accompanying them were minors, while the rules provided that they should not be less than 21 years in age. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer framed issues on these pleas. He found that there was no irregularity in the counting of votes. The plea was based upon interpolations made on the votes subsequent to the counting. This issue was decided in the negative. 4. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of one Bhagawti Din clerk of the Panchayat Raj Department, for holding that the blind and infirm persons were allowed to have companions who were minors. On this finding the election of the Petitioner was set aside and a casual vacancy was declared. 5. I may mention that though the trend of the finding is that there was no irregularity on the occasion of counting and that some interpolations had been made in the votes subsequently, the conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Officer (according to the certified copy) is that counting was not done properly. It is apparent that the word 'Not' occurring in it is a typing mistake. The finding in fact is that there was no irregularity in the counting. 6. In regard to the blind and infirm persons, the position is that Bhagwati Din produced certain envelopes said to contain forms filed by the presiding officers at the time of the election. He deposed that the forms were not signed by the presiding officers. He did not know who had made out or written those forms. He also stated that some of the forms were not readable. The presiding officers were not summoned to prove these forms. The statement of Bhagwati Din does not, in my opinion, prove the forms to be genuine documents. He did not know who had made out or written those forms. He also stated that some of the forms were not readable. The presiding officers were not summoned to prove these forms. The statement of Bhagwati Din does not, in my opinion, prove the forms to be genuine documents. He disowns all knowledge of them. It is apparent that he was not present when the forms were filed upon at the time of the election. His statement is hence irrelevant to prove the forms to be genuine one. This inference is further corroborated by the absence of the signatures of the presiding officers which was necessary under the Rules. It cannot hence be said that there was any evidence on the record on the question whether blind and infirm persons were allowed to have companions who were minors. The finding is without evidence. 7. Another serious infirmity in the finding is that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not apply his mind or record a finding whether the irregularity in the casting of votes by blind and infirm persons was such as to materially affect the result. Without such a finding the election of the Petitioner could not validly be set aside. Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act permits the setting aside of an election on the ground that there has been gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules only if in addition, it is found that the result of the election has been materially affected thereby. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11th October, 1974, is quashed. The Petitioner would be entitled to costs.