JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - For the Office of the Pradhan of Village Dataull, Pargana and District Etawah an election was held in the year 1972. The petitioner and respondents nos. 2 to 4 are the candidates for the said office. The petitioner was declared duly elected. An election petition was filed by respondent no. 2 challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that on the date of nomination the age of the petitioner was less than 30 years and consequently he was not entitled to be nominated for the office of the pradhan in view of Section 5-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1917. The election petition was contested by the petitioner. The parties produced both oral and documentary evidence and after perusal of the said evidence the Sub-Divisional Officer respondent no. 1 allowed the election petition on 4th September, 1972, upholding the contention of respondent no. 2 that the age of the petitioner on the date of nomination was below 30 years. It is this order of respondent no. 1 which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition. 2. It has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer has committed an error by placing implicit reliance on the entry of petitioner's date of birth in the scholar's register and in ignoring the evidence produced by the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of opinion that the findings recorded by respondent no. 1 that the age of the petitioner was below 30 years on the date of nomination is essentially a finding of fact based on perusal of evidence and does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The oral evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his case has been specifically disbelieved by respondent no. 1. It has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that copy of Kutumb Register which had been filed by the petitioner in support of his age has been ignored by the respondent no. 1 and consequently his order is vitiated. We find no substance in the submission. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri Rampal Singh on behalf of respondent no. 1 and consequently his order is vitiated. We find no substance in the submission. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri Rampal Singh on behalf of respondent no. 1 it has been stated that the extract of the Kutumb Register which was filed by the petitioner had been issued by himself on 18th September 1976 in the capacity of Pradhan. Even though a rejoinder affidavit has been filed there is no specific denial of this averment. In this view of the matter much reliance could apparently not be placed on this Kutumb Register, the same having been issued during the pendency of the election petition by the petitioner himself. It was then urged by the counsel for the petitioner that a copy of Voters' List prepared in 1970 filed by the petitioner indicated that the age of the petitioner was 36 years. It is not a case in which the copy of the Voter's List has been ignored by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He has taken that List into consideration and has chosen not to place any reliance on it in view of the discrepancy in the petitioner's age given in the Voters' List and in the written statement filed by the petitioner himself in the election petition. His order cannot, therefore, be challenged on this ground either. 4. The petitioner has filed a certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Etawah, as an Annexure to the writ petition indicating that "his age by general appearance is about thirty one years." The finding recorded by the respondent no. 1 in regard to age of the petitioner on the date of nomination cannot be challenged on the basis of additional evidence filed in the writ petition. It is true that in paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not allow the petitioner to file his age certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon but no reliance on this averment can obviously be placed for two reasons. Firstly, it has not been stated that this certificate was filed before the respondent no. 1 along with any application and the said application was rejected. The manner in which the said certificate was sought to be filed by the petitioner has not at all been disclosed in the writ petition. Firstly, it has not been stated that this certificate was filed before the respondent no. 1 along with any application and the said application was rejected. The manner in which the said certificate was sought to be filed by the petitioner has not at all been disclosed in the writ petition. Secondly, in the counter............affidavit it has been specifically denied that never was any such certificate sought to be filed before respondent no. 1. 5. From the foregoing discussion we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.