JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Mohammad Shamim challenging the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, dated 18-1-1992, passed under sub-section (6) read with sub-section (7) of Section 12-C of the Panchyat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, SRI T. P. Singh, learned counsel for the answering opposite party and SRI Kamlesh Narain Pandey, learned Standing Counsel have been heard at length. When this petition was filed in this Court on 21-5-1992 the parties were directed to file an affidavit and this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court. The short facts relevant for the present case are as under : The petitioner Mohd. Shamim and opposite party no. 5 Akshaibar primarily happened to be the main contestants for the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Wajidpur in district (Ghazipur for which nomination papers were filed on 23-6-1988. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was done on 26-6-1988 and the nomination papers of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no 5 and some others were found in order and consequently they fought the election held on 5-7-1988. After counting, in the results declared on 7-7-1988, the opposite party no. 5 was declared elected by overwhelming majority. 3. Mohammad Shamim filed an Election Petition on 14-7-88 before the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed on 18-5-89. But this order was challenged by petitioner Mohd. Shamim, for he was not declared elected, by Akshaibar (opposite party no. 3) because his election was set aside and by a third candidate Ramayan Ram as he was declared unsuccessful. These there Revisions were connected and after hearing the petitioner and opposite party no. 5 as well as the third candidate Ramayan Ram alias Ram Narayan, the petition was remanded by the Second Additional District Judge, Ghazipur (in Panchayat Revisions No. 107, 121 and 122 of 1989) on 2-9-1989. The operative portion of the said remand order translated into English would read as under : "This revision is allowed. 5 as well as the third candidate Ramayan Ram alias Ram Narayan, the petition was remanded by the Second Additional District Judge, Ghazipur (in Panchayat Revisions No. 107, 121 and 122 of 1989) on 2-9-1989. The operative portion of the said remand order translated into English would read as under : "This revision is allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority Saidpur dated 18-5-89 is set aside and the election petition is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with the direction that he will decide the same afresh in accordance with the provisions contained in the Panchayat Raj Act and keeping in view the observations made above. The parties will bear their own costs. The parties will appear before the Prescribed Authority on 25-9-1989 who will pass further orders after their appearance." 4. After this matter had gone before the Prescribed Authority, he allowed the Election Petition on 16-7-1991 holding that the opposite party no. 5 was in arrears beyond one year and so was the case of the other candidate Ramayan. Consequently he held that their nomination papers were wrongly accepted which ought to have been rejected and, therefore, the election of the opposite party no. 5 Akshaibar, declared on 22-6-1988 as the successful candidate in the elections of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Wajidpur, was set aside and since the petitioner Mohd. Shamim was then the only surviving candidate who fought the election the petitioner Mohd. Shamim was declared having been duly elected as the Pradhan in the said election. Against the judgment and order dated 16-7-1991, the opposite party no. 5 filed proceedings as contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 12-C which came up for decision before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as Revisional Court) as Civil Revision No. 119 of 1991 decided by him on 18-1-92. By the said order the Revisional Court, Ghazipur, held that in the aforesaid order, the reasoning and the finding recorded fry the Prescribed Authority were beyond the evidence on record, contrary to law as also contrary to the factual position existing on the date of filing of the nomination papers. Consequently, he allowed the Revision, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-7-1991 and upheld the declaration of result of the opposite party no. 5 Akshaibar. Aggrieved by this order, Mond. Shamim has filed the present writ petition. 5. Consequently, he allowed the Revision, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-7-1991 and upheld the declaration of result of the opposite party no. 5 Akshaibar. Aggrieved by this order, Mond. Shamim has filed the present writ petition. 5. Before any point is taken up for discussion It may be relevant to state here that under the scheme of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, enough importance has been attached to the fact that if on the date of filing of the nomination papers any candidate is found to be in arrears of taxes, payable to the local self-Government Authorities, he should not be permitted to contest the elections. The salutary purpose behind insisting on the said requirements to be fulfilled on the date of filing of the nomination, would be best judged by the provisions as they exist in the Rules than to incorporate one's own thoughts on this subject, While Rule 15 has four sub-rules the proviso to rule 2 to sub-rule (1) states that ; "In the case of a person who is a candidate for being elected or is being nominated or appointed to any office in the Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchyat or Niyaya Panchyat the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid before his nomination paper for election is rejected or he is nominated or appointed, as the case may be." Not only this, the sub-rule (2) provides; that : "The Gaon Panchayat Adhikari, Khand Vikas Adhikari and Karya Adhikari of the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, shall in the manner and form specified by the Director of Panchayats, prepare the list of such persons who, according to the record of the Gaon Sabha, Kshettra Samiti or Zila Parishad are in arrears of any tax, fee, rate or any other dues as aforesaid." It is further provided that the list shall be published at the office of the Gaon Sabha, Kshettra Samiti or Zila Parishad as the case may be, and an announcement to this affect will be made by the beat of drum in the area of the Gaon Sabha. 6. Only one further provision needs be specifically noted and that is Section 5-A of the Act which contains the disqualifications for candidates coming up for elections. 6. Only one further provision needs be specifically noted and that is Section 5-A of the Act which contains the disqualifications for candidates coming up for elections. Omitting the words not necessary for the controversy in the instant petition the section would read as follows: "5-A Disqualification for holding office under the Gaon Sabha :-A person shall be disqualified for being chosen for holding any office in the Gaon Sabha if he- (a) ........................ (b) ........-.............. (c) ........................ (d)........................ (e) is in arrears of any tax, fee, rate or any other dues payable by him to the Gaon Sabha, Kshettra Samiti or Zila Parishad for such period as may be prescriced, or has.......... (f) to (n).......... Provided that the period of disqualification under clause (d), (g), (h), (i), (J), (k) or (1) shall be five years from such date as may be prescribed ; Provided further that the disqualification under clause (e) shall cease upon payments of arrears or delivery of the record or property as the case may ; Provided also that a disqualification under clause (d), (g), (h), (1) (j) (k) or (1) may in the manner prescribed, be removed by the State Government." Corresponding provision is the Rules with regard to arrears has to be found in Rule 15. The relevant portion of the said Rale 15 is quoted hereinafter for ready reference: "15-Disqnalification on account of non-payment of tax etc. Sub-rule (1): A person shall be disqualified under clause (e) of Section 5-A of the Act for being chosen. nominated or appointed to, and for holding; any office in the Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchayat or Niyaya Panchyat. if he is in arrears of any tax, fee or rate due from him to the Gaon Sabha for a period exceeding one year (emphasis supplied) : Provided that in the case of a person who is a candidate for being elected or is being nominated or appointed to any office in the Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchyat or Niyaya Panchyat the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid before his nomination paper for election is rejected or he is nominated or appointed, as the case may be ; Provided farther that in the case of a person who is already holding an office.............. Sub-rule (2), The Secretary of the Gaoa Sabha shall in the manner and form specified by the Director of Panchyats, prepare a list of such persons who, according to the records of Gaon Sabha are in arrears of any tax, fee or rate as aforesaid." Sub-rule (3) : The list shall be published at the office of the Sabha and an announcement to this effect will be made by beat of drum in the area of the Sabha. Sub-rule (4) : The name of person who has paid, whether under protest or otherwise, all the arrears shown against his name in the list shall be struck off the list A receipt issued by the Pradhan or Secretary in payment of any such amount shall be conclusive proof of the fact that the person is not in arrears of tax, fee or rate as the case may be." In other words, the citizen who takes upon himself to fight an election has to be told before hand in the manner laid down in the Act and the Rules that he is in arrears and in effect he gets a complete opportunity to wipe out the same and fight the election. Once this is not done or is not apparent, then every one has to be on guard when a charge of arrears is levelled against a winning candidate. 7. This takes us to the question Involved in the instant case. The admitted position is that the opposite party no. 5 Akshaibar had obtained a certified copy of the list from Che Zila Parishad which did not include his name as carrying any arrears. THIS list was filed admittedly by him along with the nomination papers. In fact, the further admitted case is that the petitioner had filed an objection before the Returning Officer saying that the opposite party no. 5 as also the other two candidates who were fighting the election, were in arrears and, therefore, suffered the disqualification enumerated by section 5 quoted above. Admittedly again, inspite of this objection since the petitioner had already filed the certified copy of the list of persons in arrears which did not contain his name, he having secured maximum number of votes, was declared elected by the Returning Officer. 8. In the election petition filed by the petitioner Mohd. Admittedly again, inspite of this objection since the petitioner had already filed the certified copy of the list of persons in arrears which did not contain his name, he having secured maximum number of votes, was declared elected by the Returning Officer. 8. In the election petition filed by the petitioner Mohd. Shamim it was found that the declaration 'of result in favour of the opposite party was proper. Therefore, Mobd. Shamim took a revision under sub-section (6) of Section 12-C, as stated above. It is true that while remanding the matter for reconsideration there is an observation in the body of the order that the Prescribed Authority should record a categorical finding as to whether the declared candidate (opposite party no. 5) was in arrears of tax beyond one year or not. But the fact remains that the operative portion of the order required the Prescribed Authority to decide the election petition afresh in accordance with law. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Shamim has vehemently argued that the observations contained in the body of the said judgment remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority is capable of only one interpretation and that is that the Prescribed Authority was being called upon thereby to decide what was the quantum of arrears whether one year or more and tit was not left open to the Prescribed Authority to decide whether there was any arrears or not. In this connection it was high lighted that in the; order passed after remand the Prescribed Authority having found that the opposite Party no, 5 was in arrears for more than one year, it was not open to the Second Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in the revision filed at the behest of opposite party no. 5 to set aside that finding of fact and record his finding that there was no arrear to be paid by opposite party no. 5 when the original result was declared at the elections held on 5-7-1988. 9. Sri T. P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party has insisted that so far as question of arrears is concerned, since no body can be disqualified if he is in arrear for less than one year, therefore, while mentioning that the Prescribed Authority should be looking into the question whether the opposite party no. 9. Sri T. P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party has insisted that so far as question of arrears is concerned, since no body can be disqualified if he is in arrear for less than one year, therefore, while mentioning that the Prescribed Authority should be looking into the question whether the opposite party no. 5 was in arrears for more than one year or not, the revisional court which decided the matter initially bad in fact directed the Prescribed Authority to record a finding as to whether the opposite party no. 5 had incurred any disqualification within the meaning of the Act or not. 10. It is beyond controversy that the arrears whatever it may be, can or should be used as a disqualification when it may become relevant and wold be meaningless if it does not disqualify a candidate from fighting the elections. The directions quoted above in the remand order has to be interpreted in law, facts and circumstances narrated above, to mean that the Prescribed Authority was required thereby to record a finding after looking into the evidence whether opposite party no. 5 had suffered any disqualification or not. As noted above, the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the opposite party no. 5 carried the said disqualification and, therefore, was not entitled to contest the election and, therefore, he declared Mohd Shamim to have been elected at the said elections. This finding of fact, as it has been termed by Sri Gajendra Pratap, is based on the evidence of only one witness on the point, namely, Ram Sagar Yadav, the Tax Officer, Zila Parishad, Ghazipur. Complete copy of the statement has been filed, by the parties and has been read and relied upon by both the sides. 11. From the statement of the aforesaid Ram Sagar Yadav two things are apparent beyond doubt. Firstly in the original list which was published by the Zila Parished the name of opposite party no. 5 was not shown to be in arrears. Secondly, that the opposite party no. 11. From the statement of the aforesaid Ram Sagar Yadav two things are apparent beyond doubt. Firstly in the original list which was published by the Zila Parished the name of opposite party no. 5 was not shown to be in arrears. Secondly, that the opposite party no. 5 had made an application objecting to the alleged inclusion of his name in the subsequent list on the ground that there was no expeller at his house upon which objection, an enquiry was conducted by the said Sri Ram Sagar Yadav himself who found the objection valid and tenable and also noted that there was no arrears payable by the opposite party no. 5. The statement of Ram Sagar Yadav is rather positive that Akshaibar was not and could not have been in arrears. Thus, once these two facts emerge from the statement of Ram Sagar Yadav it passes one's comprehension how opposite party no. 5 can be held to have been in arrears on the date he filed his nomination papers. Under the circumstances applying the well-settled principles of judging the legal prohibitions while evaluating the evidence in the election petitions, the said finding was based on a misreading of the statement of Ram Sagar Yadav. Thus, the said order of the prescribed Authority had to be discarded as being contrary to law and suffering from errors apparent on the face of the record. The Revisional Court was thus fully justified in passing the impugned order. 12. Thus, the said order of the prescribed Authority had to be discarded as being contrary to law and suffering from errors apparent on the face of the record. The Revisional Court was thus fully justified in passing the impugned order. 12. Before end, it may be relevant to mention here that Sri Gajendra Pratap had tried to lay emphasis on the language used in sub-section (6) of Section 12-C which may be quoted here for ready reference :- "(6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority upon an application under sub-section (1), may within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District judge for revision of such an order on any one or more of the following grounds, namely ; (a) that the prescribed authority has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law ; (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested ; (c) that the prescribed authority has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.'" It was argued there after by referring to clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the said sub-section that the revisional court could not have interfered with the finding of fact which was initially recorded by the First Revisional Court and subsequently recorded by the Prescribed Authority's order dated 16-7-1991. In support of this argument the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions in re : Kishan Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad, AIR 1955 All. 557 , Keshardeo Chandra v Radha Kisen Chamria, AIR 1953 SC 23 and Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 2073 . He also cited the observations contained in the decisions of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tanway, 1972 (3) SC 195 and AIR 1968 All. 126 . The last authority relied upon by the learned counsel was a decision of the Division Bench of this Court Sher Singh v. Hira Lal, 1978 ALR 147. However, there is no need to go into the details of the facts and the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions because there is no quarrel with the propositions contained in the aforesaid rulings. On the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 1 i.e., the Second Addl. Distt. However, there is no need to go into the details of the facts and the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions because there is no quarrel with the propositions contained in the aforesaid rulings. On the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 1 i.e., the Second Addl. Distt. Judge, Ghazipur, had exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances which this Court has noted above, it would have meant a real injustice if intereference with the order of the Prescribed Authority was not made by the Revisional court. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. The interim order dated 12-2-1992 as extended from time to time is vacated. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, then made an oral request that leave should be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. No substantial question of law of public importance it involved. Therefore, this prayer too is rejected. Petition dismissed.