JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Basti dated 7th July 1984 allowing the revision filed by respondent Bashishtha against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27th August 1983 dismissing the petition of Bashishtha respondent on the ground that there has been no compliance of the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as the security of Rs. 5/- has not been given by Gaon Sabha concerned. 2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that an election petition by Bashistha, respondent challenging the election of Ramesh Chandra Tewari, petitioner was filed within time and was accompanied by a treasury challan of Rs. 5/- as contemplated by Rule 24. However, objection which has been raised was that the amount of Rs. 5/- which was to be deposited as security under rule 24 had not been credited in the correct head i.e. in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha concerned and was credited to the Zila Gaon Sabha Fund. The aforesaid argument raised by the petitioner had been accepted by the Prescribed Authority. Feeling aggrieved a revision was preferred and the revisional authority has set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority after recording a finding that it was due to the mistake of the Prescribed Authority that the amount was deposited in the name of Zila Gaon Sabha Fund. The aforesaid finding was recorded by the revisional authority, presumably on the basis that the Treasury Challan contained stamp of the Prescribed Authority. The revisional authority also held that there was no Zila Gaon Sahba Found and, as such when Bashishtha, respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 5/- in the Zila Gaon Sabha Fund, it should be treated that there has been substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 25. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition has urged that under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Act only two funds are contemplated i.e. Gaon Sabha Fund under section 124 and Consolidated Gaon Sabha Fund for the entire district under section 125-A. It has been urged that Bashishtha respondent deposited Rs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition has urged that under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Act only two funds are contemplated i.e. Gaon Sabha Fund under section 124 and Consolidated Gaon Sabha Fund for the entire district under section 125-A. It has been urged that Bashishtha respondent deposited Rs. 5/- in the Zila Gaon Sabha Fund, the same was being deposited in the fund which bad been established under section 125-A of the U.P. Zamindari, Abolition and Land Reforms Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there has been thus no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 24 inasmuch as by no stretch of imagination it can be said that by depositing the amount in Zila Gaon Sabha Fund, the respondent Bashishtha was depositing the amount in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha concerned, as admittedly Zila Gaon Sabha Fund pertained to the entire Gaon Sabhas of a district 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has urged that there is no account of the Gaon Sabha concerned in the State Bank of India and that the amount in the personal Ledger account of the Gaon Sabha concerned could not be deposited by means of treasury challan. It has been urged that the Gaon Sabha concerned has got an account in the post office where Treasury challan cannot be accepted. In the counter affidavit, which has been tiled on behalf of Bashishtha, respondent it has also been urged that in the treasury challan it is the officer of the Prescribed Authority who had filed in the challan showing the head in which the amount was to be deposited as Zila Gaon Sabha Fund. It has been argued that it is due to the mistake of the office of the Prescribed Authority that there has been a mistake in wrongly mentioning the head in which the amount was to be deposited. On these facts there has been a substantial compliance of the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act, and in any view of the Rules framed under the Act, and in any view of the matter it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. 5. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are more or less admitted. In the treasury challan it has not been mentioned that the amount is being deposited in the personal Ledger account of the Gaon Sabha concerned. In the strict sense there is thus no compliance of the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act. The head in which the amount of Rs. 5/- was sought to be deposited is mentioned as Zila Gaon Sabha Fund This is not the fund in which the amount is required to be deposited. As far as the pleas which have been raised by Bashishtha respondent in this writ petition are concerned, it appears that the two courts below i.e. the Prescribed Authority and the Revisional Court have not recorded findings on those questions For finding whether there has been substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 24, it was essential to find out two things. Firstly, whether at the relevant time it was possible for a man to deposit amount of Rs. 5/- by means of treasury challan in the personal ledger of the Gaon Sabha concerned. Secondly, it should have been categorically found out that column showing the head under which the amount was to be deposited had been filled by the office of the Prescribed Authority or not one could see, that in case findings on these two questions has been recorded in favour of the respondent Bashishtha, a court could come to the conclusion that mere had been substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act. However, in case amount could be deposited by treasury challan in the personal Ledger account of the Gaon Sabha concerned and the column showing the head under which the amount had to be deposed had not been filled by the officer, but by the petitioner or his agent, then the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act and the petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. As neither the revisional court nor the Prescribed Authority have decided the aforesaid vital questions in my opinion, the order passed in Civil Revision dated 7-7-1984 and also of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-8-83 are liable to be quashed. 6. As neither the revisional court nor the Prescribed Authority have decided the aforesaid vital questions in my opinion, the order passed in Civil Revision dated 7-7-1984 and also of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-8-83 are liable to be quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide this question again in the light of the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons stated above the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 7-7-1984 passed by the Revisional Authority and dated 27-8-83 of the Prescribed Authority are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the election petition in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within a week. The parties shall produce the certified copy of the order before the prescribed authority within a period of four weeks from today. The Prescribed Authority shall thereafter dispose of the entire election petition including the questions referred to above within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.