JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.- The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Amar Bahadur against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaunpur, dated 23-11-1983, setting aside his election under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts are these. Five candidates filed their nomination papers on 7-4-82 for election of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Barauli, Pargana Rari, Tahsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. These candidates were (1) Amar Bahadur, the petitioner, (2) Nirhoo, (3) Mahabir, (4) Ram Samujh and (5) Chauthi, respondents 5 to 8. Apart from these four persons, one Triveni Singh had also filed his nomination paper but he subsequently withdrew. 3. As against the nomination papers of respondents 5 to 8, the petitioner, Amar Bahadur, filed an objection that each one of them had been convicted for an offence of theft, hence, they were disqualified under Section 5-A (h) of the Act. The Nirvachan Adhikari considered the objection of the petitioner and having found that the aforesaid respondents had been convicted by the Nyaya Panchayat in a criminal case decided on 15-5-1981, rejected their nomination papers. Since he found that Amar Bahadur, the petitioner, was the only qualified person left in the field, he declared him elected, under Rule 18-E. The respondents 5 to 8, thereafter, filed election petition under Section 12-C of the Act challenging the order of the Nirvachan Adhikari rejecting the nomination papers and declaration of Amar Bahadur as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The nomination papers, as stated earlier, were rejected on the ground that the respondents 5 to 8 were convicted under Section 379 I.P.C. by Nyaya Panchayat Badlapur Khurd and a fine of Rs. 5/- was imposed on each of them. The Nirvachan Adhikari found under Section 5-A (h) of the Act that since respondents 5 to 8 were convicted of an offence involving moral terpitude, they were disqualified from contesting the election. 4. The material portion of Section 5-A is as under :- "5-A. Disqualification for holding office under Gaon Sabha or Nyaya Panchayat. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat, or in the Nyaya Panchayat, or the Nyaya Panchayat constituted under Section 42, if he- (h) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude." 5. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen, nominated or appointed to, and for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat, or in the Nyaya Panchayat, or the Nyaya Panchayat constituted under Section 42, if he- (h) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude." 5. Moral turpitude have different meanings in different contexts. It may mean a something which the society considers as base and immoral i.e. theft, forgery, dacoity or embezzlement etc. 6. By the order dated 15-5-1981, all the four respondents had been convicted and fined Rs. 51/- each for having committed theft of a Lota and Dari Section 69 (2) of the Act which was added by Act No. 37 of 1978 provides :- "69 (2) No conviction ordered by a Nyaya Panchayat shall by itself operate as, or be the basis of any disqualification or penalty under any law for the time being in force." 7. Relying on Section 69 (2) the Sub-Divisional Officer held that conviction ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat against respondents 5 to 8 could not be the basis of disqualification under Section 5-A. The Sub-Divisional Officer had on that finding, allowed the election petitions. In the four revisions under Section 12-C (6) filed by Amar Bahadur against the judgments of the Sub-Divisional Officer given in the four election petitions, the District Judge held that the rejection of the nomination papers of respondents 5 to 8 by the Returning Officer was against Section 69 (2). Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer had correctly allowed the election petition of respondents 5 to 8. Aggrieved, Amar Bahadur has filed the present writ. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 5-A is in absolute terms and it has remained unchallenged despite introduction of Section 69 (2). Therefore, this Section 5-A has to be read by itself and as a conviction has been ordered for moral turpitude by a Nyaya Panchayat such a person would be covered by Section 5-A (h) and would be liable to be disqualified. He urged that Section 69 (2) had been added by Act No. 37 of 78 which came into force in December, 1978. This provision, according to the learned counsel, cannot take advantage of in interpreting Section 5-A. 9. He urged that Section 69 (2) had been added by Act No. 37 of 78 which came into force in December, 1978. This provision, according to the learned counsel, cannot take advantage of in interpreting Section 5-A. 9. If Section 5-A is read in isolation and without sub-section (2) of Section 69, any conviction of a person made of an offence involving moral turpitude would disqualify him. Conviction of course should be by an authority competent to make it. At the time Section 69 (2) had not been added, conviction ordered by a Nyaya Panchayat could be a disqualification for being a candidate of an election of the Gaon Sabha, but after addition of this provision, the whole complexion has changed. The Legislature since did not want any person to be disqualified on the basis of conviction ordered by a Nyaya Panchayat, therefore, it made the provision laying down that such a conviction could not by itself disqualify a person from being a candidate. It is immaterial that sub-section (2) of Section 69 had not been initially in the Act when Section 5-A was enacted. The two provisions had to be read together for the purpose of giving a harmonious structure. It Section 5-A is read after addition of sub-section (2) in isolation, the Court would be omitting to consider a provision which it is bound to. On the relevant date when the nomination papers were filed, sub-section (2) had been added. It was with reference to this date that the provisions of law had to be seen and the question of disqualification was to be considered. This is no reason that as Section 5-A had not been amended, therefore, Section 69 (2) could not apply to a case of conviction ordered by a Nyaya Panchayat. The rule of interpretation is that the whole of the Act should be interpreted. It is this application of this rule that will make its harmonious reading and will effectuate the intention of the Legislature. 10. As to what is the intention behind enactment of sub-section (2) of Section 69, is not far to seek. This is based on the experience of the Legislature. On that experience, the Legislature thought that a person should not be disqualified on the basis of conviction ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat. This has to be given effect to. 10. As to what is the intention behind enactment of sub-section (2) of Section 69, is not far to seek. This is based on the experience of the Legislature. On that experience, the Legislature thought that a person should not be disqualified on the basis of conviction ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat. This has to be given effect to. Wisdom of Legislature behind the enactment is not to be questioned in a Court of law. 11. Counsel for the petitioner urged that Section 69 (2) would not apply to a case of an election under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act but to any other elections provided for by other Acts. This submission is untenable. The U.P. Raj Act is concerned with the establishment and making of better provision for village administration and development. This provision has to be applied to elections contemplated by the Act. 12. Counsel next urged that the differential treatment given to a judgment of a Nyaya Panchayat than that given by any other authority of Court, would result in creating a discrimination. Hence, Section 69 (2) would in that event be liable to be declared ultra vires. I do not accept this submission. 13. This Section 69 (2) applies equally to every person who is convicted by a Nyaya Panchayats. Therefore, persons convicted by Nyaya Panchayats are being similarly situated. The right of a person to contest an election is governed by the Act under which the same is held. In finding out this qualification of Section 5-A, the Legislature desires the same to be read with Section 69 (2). If that is done, there would be no discrepancy. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.