JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. The dispute relates to the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha village Nangli, Jamalpur, P. O. Kurmali, District Muzaffarnagar. On 5-7-1988, election for the office of Pradhan was held. In the said election, Chandra Pal Singh and Surendra Pal Singh were candidates. The election was held and ultimately Surendra Singh was declared elected. Chandra Pal Singh filed an election petition under section 12C of the U P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 questioning the validity of the declaration of the result in favour of Surendra Singh. This petition was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kairana who is the Prescribed Authority under the Act. During the pendency of this petition, Surendra Singh, the return candidate died. Consequently, by an order dated 27th October 1988, the Prescribed Authority abated the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition no. 23748 of 1988 was filed in this court. 2. After the election petition had been abated by an order dated 27th October, 1988, fresh elections were declared to be held and next election programme was fixed by the District Magistrate by the order dated 28-2-1989. The petitioner, consequently, challenged the election programme dated 28th February, 1989 by means of a fresh writ petition no. 4141 of 1989. In this petition, the petitioner obtained an interim order to the effect that the election of the office of the Pradhan was not to be held. 3. Both these petitions are being contested by Sri Sankatha Rai who appears on behalf of Dharam Pal Singh who was a candidate in the election which was subsequently held after the death of Surendra Singh. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions and Sri Sankatha Rai on behalf of Dharam Pal Singh. Since both these petitions relate to the same subject matter, they are being decided by a common order. The contention raised by the petitioner in both these petitions is that the Prescribed Authority could not have abated the election petition filed by him and such fresh election sought to be held for the office of the Pradhan cannot be held and the entire proceedings for the election are liable to be quashed. 5. Rule 25 Chapter I-F of U. P. Panchayat Raj RULEs, 1947 relates to the election petition. RULE 25 lays down the procedure for the hearing of the petition. 5. Rule 25 Chapter I-F of U. P. Panchayat Raj RULEs, 1947 relates to the election petition. RULE 25 lays down the procedure for the hearing of the petition. RULE 25 sub-clause (1) along with proviso reads as follows :- 25. Hearing of the petition. (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules contained in this chapter, every election petition shall be tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as nearly as may be, accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits : Provided that- (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer, may hear the petitioner or his counsel and if he finds that the petition has no substance, reject the same without the issue of any notice to the opposite parties ; (ii) it shall not be necessary for Sub-Divisional Officer to record the evidence in full and he may maintain only a memorandum of evidence produced by the parties before him ; (iii) if there is a sole petitioner and he dies, or there is a sole respondent and he dies, the petition shall abate ; (iv)...... (v)...... (vi)......(vii) .................... 6. Clause (iii) of the proviso quoted above clearly provides that if there is a sole petitioner and he dies, or there is a sole respondent and he dies, the petition shall abate. In the instant case the sole petitioner in the election petition is Chandra Pal Singh who is the petitioner in this court and the sole respondent was Surendra Singh who was the only candidate who contested for the office of the Pradhan and was made the respondent in the election petition. Since Surendra Singh was a sole respondent and he died, therefore, the order of abatement passed by the Prescribed Authority in view of clause (iii) of the proviso quoted above is clearly a valid order. The order is in accordance with the Rules framed for hearing of an election petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inamati Mallappa Basappa v. Desari Basavraj Ayyappa, 1959 SCR 611 . The order is in accordance with the Rules framed for hearing of an election petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inamati Mallappa Basappa v. Desari Basavraj Ayyappa, 1959 SCR 611 . His submission is that an election petition once filed does not mean a contest only between the parties thereto but continues for the benefit of the whole constituency and cannot come to an end merely by the withdrawl thereof by the petitioner or even by his death or by the death or withdrawal of opposition by the respondent but is liable to be continued by any person who might have been a petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the above law while construing the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act. In the case of the election of a Pradhan under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Legislature has laid down a different procedure. In the case of an election of a Pradhan under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, the Legislature specifically provided that in the case of death of a sole respondent or a sole petitioner, the petition shall abate. This provision does not exist under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act or the Rules framed thereunder. In the circumstances, the principle laid down in the case of Basappa (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. Section 12-H of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 clearly provides as follows :- "12-H. Casual Vacancies-If a vacancy in the office of the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or of member of a Gaon Panchayat arises by reason of his death, removal, resignation, avoidance of his election or refusal to take oath of office, it shall be filled for the remainder of his term in the manner, as far as may be, provided in section 11-B, 11-C or 12 as the case may be." 9. The above section lays down that if there is a vacancy in the office of the Pradhan by reason of his death, it shall be filled up for the remainder of his term in the manner provided under section 11-B, 11-C or 12 as the case may be. Section 11-B relates to the election of a Pradhan. The above section lays down that if there is a vacancy in the office of the Pradhan by reason of his death, it shall be filled up for the remainder of his term in the manner provided under section 11-B, 11-C or 12 as the case may be. Section 11-B relates to the election of a Pradhan. THErefore once the death of the Pradhan takes place, the only manner by which an election should have been held was to held a fresh election for the said office and that was done in the present case. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the order of abatement passed by the Prescribed Authority was a valid order and the election programme subsequently issued was validly issued. IN our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have substance. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 14th March, 1989 passed in writ no. 4141 of 1989 is hereby vacated. Petitions dismissed.