JUDGMENT N. M. Kasliwal, C. J.—An election for the office of Pradhan Gram Panchayat Thana Khas was held in the year 1985. Respondent No. 2 Sahib Singh won the election by a margin of three votes. The petitioner Chuni Lai who had contested the election and was defeated by Sahib Singh by a margin of three votes, filed an election petition. The election petition was tried by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra, at Dharamsala and by an order dated 13-6-1988 he dismissed the election petition filed by petitioner Chuni Lal The petitioner aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. I have heard Mr. S. S. Kanwar for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jishtu for respondent No. 2. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under section 186 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), any dispute relating to election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat had to be decided by the Deputy Commr. after taking such evidence as he may deem fit and such order was final. It has been contended that the Governor by order Annexure P-5 dated 12-5-1988 revoked the powers conferred on Addl. Deputy Commissioners and Addl. District Magistrates vide earlier notification No 7-1/79-Elec, dated 2-2-1979, 7-5-1979, 4-11-1985 and 28-12-1985 issued by the Election department under section 186 read with section 3 (1) of the Act in connection with the disputes relating to the election of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order after 12-5-1988 and the final order passed by him on 13-6-1988 is thus without jurisdiction. It was also contended by Mr. Kanwar that under section 3(1) (i) of the Act, no power could have been delegated to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. In this regard, attention of the court has been drawn to section 3 (1) (i) which reads as under:— "3. It was also contended by Mr. Kanwar that under section 3(1) (i) of the Act, no power could have been delegated to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. In this regard, attention of the court has been drawn to section 3 (1) (i) which reads as under:— "3. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :— (i) "Deputy Commissioner" means the Deputy Commissioner of a district and includes any officer specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under this Act: Provided that such officer shall not perform any function in respect of which the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under this Act is final." 4. It was submitted that under the proviso to section 3(1) (i) it has been clearly provided that any officer to whom the powers are delegated under the main provision of section 3 (1) (i), cannot perform any function in respect of which the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under this Act is final. It was thus contended that under section 186, it has been clearly provided that the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been made final with regard to any dispute relating to election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat In view of these circumstances it is contended that no power can be delegated to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner as the dispute relating to election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner and then his order has been made final under section 186 of the Act. 5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State was unable to meet the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jishtu appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that even if the final order of the Addl Deputy Commissioner dated 13-6-1988 is set aside, a direction should be given that the evidence or other material placed before the Add!. Deputy Commissioner till 12-5-1988 should be considered by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter the election petition may be disposed of finally by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. While considering the provisions of section 3 (1) (i) along-with section 186 of the Act, it becomes clear that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to any dispute relating to election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan has been made final. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. While considering the provisions of section 3 (1) (i) along-with section 186 of the Act, it becomes clear that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to any dispute relating to election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan has been made final. Though under the main portion of clause (i) of section 3 (1), the Deputy Commissioner of a district also includes any officer specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under this Act, but the proviso further lays down that such officer shall not perform any function in respect of which the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under this Act is final. As section 186 clearly provides that the order of the Deputy Commissioner shall be final, as such the powers relating to the decision of any election of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan cannot be delegated to any other functionary and as such the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in the present case had no power to entertain the election petition from the very beginning. 7. In the result this writ petition is allowed, the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner dated 13-6-1988 is set aside and the election petition shall now be decided by the Deputy Commissioner Kangra denovo from the initial stage. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner Kangra on 25-9-1989. Petition allowed. -