ORDER 1. The election of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Jigar Sandi (situate in Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Azamgarh) dated 5-6-1988 was challenged on 23-2-1988 by means of two separate election petitions(E.P. No. 56 of 1988 filed by Sri Dev Narain, respondent No. 4 and E.P. No. 57 of 1988 filed by Sri Phool Chand, respondent No.5) under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose area the Gaon Sabha situated. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the election petitions, certain developments took place, which are- (a) A new district Mau was created with Head Quarter at Maunath Bhanjan vide notification No. 5-4(II)/81(172)Ra-5(8) dated November 11, 1988 (Published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 17-11-1988) comprising of areas included in Tehsil Ghosi, Maunath Bhanjan, Mohammadabad Gohna of district Azamgarh and 174 villages of Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia. The notification, except the Schedule thereto, is as extracted below :- "In exercise of powers under S. 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act No. III of 1901) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904) and in Partial modification of notifications issued in this behalf, the Governor is pleased to create, with effect from November 19, 1988, a new district Mau with its head quarters at Mau comprising of the area included in the existing tehsils Ghosi, Maunath Bhanjan and Mohammadabad Gohna of the existing Azamgarh District and 174 villages of tehsil Rasra of Ballia District specified in Scheduled below (which will be part of Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan) and to alter, with effect from the said date, the limits of the existing districts Azamgarh and Ballia as to comprise the existing areas except those included in the proposed new district of Mau. Nothing in this notification shall effect any legal proceedings already commenced or pending in any Court of law which has hitherto exercised jurisdiction in respect of the said areas." (b) Consequent upon the aforesaid notification, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna of district Azamgarh formed part of district Mau as one of its Tehsils. Nothing in this notification shall effect any legal proceedings already commenced or pending in any Court of law which has hitherto exercised jurisdiction in respect of the said areas." (b) Consequent upon the aforesaid notification, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna of district Azamgarh formed part of district Mau as one of its Tehsils. In the fresh process of re-organization vide Notification No. 5- 4(II)/81(172)RA-5-(A) dated 16/11-1988, which together with the relevant Schedule in respect of village Jigar Sandi is as extracted below, the village Jigar Sandi together with 361 village of Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna included in Tehsil Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as `Tehsil Sadar'). " ;w0ih0 yS.M jsoSU;w ,DV] 1609 ;w0ih0 ,DV laLFkk&3 lu~ 1601 dks /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk 2 ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky bl fufeR; tkjh dh x;h ljdkjh vf/klwpukvksa dk vkaf'kd mikUrj djds bl vf/klwpuk ds xtV esa izdkf'kr gksus ds fnukad ls dze'k% uhps nh x;h vuqlwph ' d' vkSj ' [k' esa rFkk fofufnZ"V ftyk vktex<+ dks rglhy emukFk eatu ds 126 xzkeksa dh rglhy eqgenkckn xksguk esa vkSj rglhy eqgenkckn xksguk ds 369 xzkeksa dks rglhy vktex<+ eSa vUrfjr djds orZeku rglhy emukFk eatu] eqgenkckn xkSguk vkSj vktex<+ dh lhekvksa esa ifjorZu djrs gSA 2- jkT;iky ;g Hkh funsZ'k nsrs gSa fd bl vf/klwpukk dh fdlh ckr dk fdlh fof/k U;k;ky; esa] ftlesa mDr {ks=ksa ds laca/k esa vc rd vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx fd;k gSa] igys ls izkjEHk gqbZ ;k fopkjk/khu fdlh fof/kd dk;Zokgh ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+sxkA " vuqlwph ' [k ' orZeku rglhy dk uke dze la[;k xzkeksa dk uke izLrkfor rglhy dk ukek 1 2 3 4 eqgenkckn xkSguk 226 & ftxj l.Mh & lnj] vktex<+ & (c) The District Magistrate, Azamgarh, issued a general direction on 7-12-1988 for ensuring that files of revenue, criminal and other cases are sent to the concerned persons, i.e. if they related to the District Magistrate, then to the concerned District Magistrate, if they related to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, then to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and if they related to the cases of tehsil level, then to the concerned tehsildar. The files of the aforesaid two election petitions were sent, accordingly, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, who, after filing of the written statements, framed issues, and at the request of the Pradhan took up and decided issues Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as preliminary issues. The files of the aforesaid two election petitions were sent, accordingly, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, who, after filing of the written statements, framed issues, and at the request of the Pradhan took up and decided issues Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as preliminary issues. About issue No. 5, which related to the objection regarding non-compliance of requirement of Section 12-C and Rule 24 of the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), it was held that both the election petitions contained the summary of circumstances and at present it does not appear that there has been any non-observance of the Rules in filing of the election petitions and issue could be decided only after the evidence from both the sides. About issue No. 6, which related to the objection regarding non-production of prima facie evidence in the election petitions in support of the statements made therein, it was held that in both the petitions summary of circumstances have been given and until the evidence of the election petitioners is led, no decision on the issue could be taken. On issue No. 7, which related to the objection about the non-deposit of a sum of Rs. 5-00 in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha as security, it was held that the deposit was proper and the petitions were not liable to be rejected. About issue No. 8, which related to the objection that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, had no jurisdiction to decide the election petitions, it was held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, had the jurisdiction in the matter. 3. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, dated 15-5-1989 passed in the aforesaid two election petitions was challenged before the District Judge by means of two separate revisions which were decided by the Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, through a common order dated 16-9-1985. 4. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Pradhan while impeaching the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 15-5-1989 and of the Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, dated 16-9-1989, has claimed relief for quashing the same and also for a direction commanding the respondent No. 1 for rejecting both the election petitions on account of non-compliance of mandatory requirements of the Rules. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, and learned counsel for the respondent. Sri S.A. Ansari. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, and learned counsel for the respondent. Sri S.A. Ansari. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his submissions developed following three points for consideration : (a) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar. who, under the law, had no jurisdiction, cannot try the election petitions; (b) In view of non-compliance of mandatory requirements under the proviso to clause (1) of Rule 24 of the Rules, the election petitions are liable to be rejected; and (c) The election petitions even otherwise, in view of non-compliance of mandatory requirements of clause (1) of Rule 24 of the Rules and for non-impleadment of the persons against whom allegations have been made in the election petitions, are liable to be rejected. 7. I proceed to deal with these points seriatim. It appears that initially the objection was about the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, to try the election petitions on account of transfer of Mohammadabad Gohna Tehsil to the newly created district Mau. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, though without giving the details to how Gaon Sabha Jigar Sandi became part of the sub-division Sadar. recorded a finding about his Jurisdiction holding that he had the jurisdiction to try the election petitions. The learned Additional District Judge, before whom the position was not made clear, observed that on the record there was no order of the District Magistrate regarding the transfer of election petitions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar but the same were received from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad Gohna and it is also confirmed that the election petitions went to the other district Mau created under the orders of the Governor but he presumed that the order of the District Magistrate transferring the election petitions must have been there otherwise they would not have gone to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, learned Counsel for the respondent produced before me a copy of the aforesaid notification dated 16-11-1989 whereby the village Jigar Sandi became part of Tehsil Sadar and there was no question of transfer of election petitions by the District Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Rule 25 of the Rules. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner built up his argument on the first point by submitting that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, lacked jurisdiction to try the election petitions which were validly presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad Gohna as even subsequent to the reorganisation of the District Sub-Divisional Officer Mohammadabad Gohna continued to retain jurisdiction in respect of cases which were pending before him prior to creation of the district. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on notification dated 11-11-1988 which provided that nothing contained in this notification shall affect any legal proceedings already commenced or pending in any Court of law, which has hitherto exercised the jurisdiction in respect of the said area and also placed reliance on Rule 24 of the Rules. Now admittedly the position, as stands, is that Gaon Sabha Jigar Sandi has become part of Tehsil Sadar and there is no specific order of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, transferring the election petitions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, in exercise of his powers under rule 25 of the Rules. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Avadhesh Mishra v. The Incharge District Judge, Deoria, (1989) 2 UPLBEC 456 : 1989 All LJ 1240 and submitted that even otherwise the District Magistrate, under Rule 25 of the Rules, could not have transferred the election petitions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar. Since there survives no controversy regarding the transfer of the election petitions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Rule 25 of the Rules, this case has no application. 9. There is only a general order dated 7-12-1988 passed by the District Magistrate for ensuring that the cases are sent to the concerned persons. The notification dated 11-11-1988 only clarified that it would have no impact on the jurisdiction of the Courts in relation to the cases pending. As the question of jurisdiction is the subject-matter under the concerned statute, as such the matter has to be considered in the light of the provisions in the Act and the Rules. Rule 24(1) of the Rules, which is extracted below, inter alia, provides for presentation of election petitions. It says that the election shall be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the concerned Gaon Sabha is situated. "24. Rule 24(1) of the Rules, which is extracted below, inter alia, provides for presentation of election petitions. It says that the election shall be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the concerned Gaon Sabha is situated. "24. Form and presentation of application.- (1) An application under sub-section (1) of Section 12-C of the Act shall be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the Sabha concerned lies within ninety days after the day on which the result of the election questioned is announced under the provisions of Chapter I-D or I-E as the case may be and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds : Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan to show that the amount of Rs. 5 has been deposited in the personal Ledger Account of the Sabha concerned as security." So far as the presentation of the election petitions is concerned, there is no controversy. The dispute is regarding the trial of the election petitions as to, under the present circumstances, who is the competent authority in the matter. Rule 25(1) of the Rules deals with the hearing of the petition, which reads as- "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 in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial or suits : Provided that- (i) 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) if shall not be necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer to record the 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) Sub-Divisional Officer may allow only such evidence to be produced as he deems relevant for the purposes of deciding the petition : (vi) the District Magistrate may at any stage on sufficient cause being shown transfer an application made under sub-section (1) of Section 12-C for hearing to another Sub-Divisional Officer; (vii) an application not presented within time or unaccompanied by a treasury challan as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 may at any time be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer; and (viii) the Sub-Divisional Officer may, on an application of either party made within five days after the date of his decision, review his order." It provides that the election petition shall be tried by `the Sub-Divisional Officer' which refers to the particular Sub-Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the concerned Gaon Sabha, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose area of jurisdiction the Gaon Sabha is situated. The definite article `the' is used before `Sub-Divisional Officer' in Rule 25 which indicates precision and signifies that particular Sub-Divisional Officer, as mentioned in Rule 24 of the Rules, shall have the power to try the election petition, and, under Rule 24 of the Rules, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer is within whose area of jurisdiction the Gaon Sabha is situated. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the Gaon Sabha Jigar Sandi is situated, has the jurisdiction to try the election petitions unless they are transferred by the competent authority. 10. The second point is related to non-compliance of the requirement under the proviso to clause (1) of Rule 24 as the requisite deposit was not made in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha as security. In the treasury challan, accompanying the election petition, the deposit, which is in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha instead of the word `security' the word `fee' was written. The said proviso to clause (1) of Rule 24 is already quoted above. The concurrent findings of the authorities below are that the deposit was made in the personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha and in the Challan accompanying the election petition the mention of the word `fee' instead of `security' has no impact on the validity of the deposit as the head of the account was correct and will not cause any problem in directing the amount. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chandpuria, AIR 1959 SC 827 , where the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, observed that (at p. 831 of AIR) : "Section 117 (of the R.P. Act) should not strictly and mechanically be construed and wherever it is shown that there has been a substantial compliance with its requirements, the tribunal should not dismiss the election petition............" The next case relied upon was the case of K. Kamaraja Nadar, v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687 , which laid down that no literal compliance is required if the amount could be realised, then it would be sufficient compliance. 11. In the present case, the mention of the word `fee' in the treasury challan instead of `security' is immaterial when the head of the account is correct as the treasury is not concerned with the purpose of the deposit but is concerned with the correct head of the account. Treasury challan on account of misdescription of the purpose of deposit would not be invalidated as the same is directory and cannot be held to be mandatory. The description of the correct head of the account is mandatory requirement of law under Rule 24 of the Rules. 12. On the last point, both the authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding compliance of Rule 24(1) of the Rules by saying that the election petitions contained the summary of circumstances. I find no justification to interfere with the finding so recorded as the same has not been shown to be either perverse or otherwise defective or contrary to law. In Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, 1982 UJ (SC) 186 : AIR 1982 SC 983 para 8. on the point of impleadment of persons as respondents in the election petition, the Supreme Court held that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent in the election petition. In Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, 1982 UJ (SC) 186 : AIR 1982 SC 983 para 8. on the point of impleadment of persons as respondents in the election petition, the Supreme Court held that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent in the election petition. In the present case, Rule 24(2) of the Rules, which reads as under, provides as to who shall be joined as respondents in the election petition :- "(2) The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidate shall be declared elected in the room and place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application." 13. If the election of a person is challenged as invalid then only the successful candidate is to be made the respondent but when the election petition in addition to the claim of setting aside the election of the returned candidate seeks for a declaration that the election petitioner or any other person may be declared elected in that event, every unsuccessful candidate has to be joined as respondents. 14. Here, in Election petition No. 57 of 1988, a declaration is sought for but it is not the case of the petitioner here that any unsuccessful candidate had not been made respondent in the election petition. The grievance is that the persons against whom the allegations have been made in the election petitions have not been made respondent as they were proper party and whose presence was necessary to enable the Court to settle all the questions, as raised in the election petitions. This aspect is also considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Jyoti Basu, AIR 1982 SC 983 (supra) and the Supreme Court stated that the election matters to be controlled, regulated and decided in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The following passage is extracted from para 8 : - "A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are and, therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on consideration of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes. Court is put in a straight jacket." Though the Code of Civil Procedure has been made application to the trial of the election petition under Rule 25 of the Rules, but the same is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It cannot be said that since the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable to the trial of the election petition, the proper parties whose presence may he necessary in order to enable the Court toy effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved, may bed joined as respondent to the petition. The Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to permit that if the Act and the Rules does not. A person who is not a candidate, may not be joined as a respondent in the election petition. 15. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed as having no force. However, since the election petitions have been considerably delayed, the authority concerned will look into the matter so that the same may be disposed of without any further delay. No order as to costs.