JUDGMENT Palok Basu 1. This writ petition has been filed by Ruber Nath Tiwari challenging the order dated 4-9-1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority as upheld in the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, Ballia on 8-9-1992 whereby the election petition filed by the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyay was allowed. 2. It appears that the election for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha of village Sarainya, P. O. Koranta Dih, Pargana Garha. district Ballia, took place on 1-7-1988 in which Narendra Nath Upadhyay was one of the candidates it is admitted that out of 884 valid votes, petitioner Kuber nath Tiwari obtained 483 votes and Narendra Nath Upadhyaya got 426 votes, while 72 votes were declared invalid and 3 votes were found missing. Therefore, in the result declared by the Returning Officer on 2-7-1988 the petitioner was said to be elected as Pradhan Narendra Nath Upadhyaya filed an election petition on 9-7-1988 under section 12-C read with Rule 25 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short the Act). Apart from the other grounds basic allegation en behalf of Narendra Nath Upadhyaya was that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age, and, therefore, as per the mandate laid down in section 5-A of the Act, he could not have been elected as Pradhan and his nomination ought to have been rejected. 3. Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. S. Audichya, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyaya and SHRI Ran Vijai Singh, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State have been heard at length. 4. When this writ petition was filed, it appeared desirable to summon the original record of the election petition as well as the revision. Both are available. Since the respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyaya opposed the admission of the writ petition, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 bad been granted time to file a counter affidavit. That "having been filed, rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner was also filed. So far as the Standing Counsel is concerned, he has supported the order and nothing is to be added at the behest of the Standing Counsel. The writ petition was accordingly heard finally at the admission stage/and is being disposed of accordingly. That "having been filed, rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner was also filed. So far as the Standing Counsel is concerned, he has supported the order and nothing is to be added at the behest of the Standing Counsel. The writ petition was accordingly heard finally at the admission stage/and is being disposed of accordingly. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the only point for determination before the Prescribed Authority as well as in the revision were and also In this writ petition is whether the petitioner Kuber Nath Tiwari was 30 years of age on the date he filed his nomination or not. Both the authorities after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, have held that the case set up by Narendra Nath Upadhyaya was fully proved and Kuber Nath Tiwari was not of 30 years of age as envisaged by section 5-A of the Act and, therefore, the election petition was allowed. 5. Only one fact may be added before taking up the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and that is that initially by an order dated 31-7-1992 the prescribed Authority had already allowed the election petition which was challenged by Ruber Nath Tiwari in a Revision which matter came up before the Additional District Judge in Revision No. 56 of 1992 who, vide his order dated 5-8-1992, had allowed the revision and remanded the matter for deciding the same afresh keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment This remand order was challenged in this Court by respondent no. 3 Narendra Nath Upadhyaya by a writ petition which was dismissed and the Prescribed Authority was directed to decide the election petition in accordance with the remand order expeditiously. After all this exercise, ultimately the Prescribed Authority again passed an order on 4-9-1992 holding that Ruber Nath Tiwari was not of 30 years of age when he was elected Pradhan and, therefore, his election had to be set aside. As stated above, this order dated 4-9-1992 has again been confirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Billia, on 18-8-1992 giving rise to this writ petition 6. As stated above, this order dated 4-9-1992 has again been confirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Billia, on 18-8-1992 giving rise to this writ petition 6. The principal argument of Shri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, was two fold First, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in Brij Mohan v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, 1965 AIR 282, High School Certificate alone cannot be made basis of the finding with regard to the date of birth of the candidate in election proceedings. Second that the remand order dated 5-8-1992 has not been followed by the Prescribed Authority in letter and spirit inasmuch as extract of the Kutumb Register, the affidavit of Shri Hari Shankar Tewari, the father of the petitioner, and the affidavit of Purohit who prepared the Rundli have not been considered. In reply, Sri J. S. Audichya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has said that in view of the admission contained in the affidavit, written statement and the objections filed" by Ruber Nath Tewari during the proceedings before the prescribed Authority in the election petition, the burden of proof on respondent no. 3, Narendra Nath Upadhyaya. stood fully discharged inasmuch as the date noted in the High School certificate was not challenged by the petitioner. It was further argued that since a different date of birth was intentionally and is admittedly recorded, the petitioner took the burden upon himself and chose to produce other evidence in order to prove that the date of birth in the High School certificate was not correct and that he was born earlier ; and when that evidence is concurrently rejected, the date of birth In the High School certificate has to prevail as the only correct date of birth of the petitioner. 7. In the election petition, a photo copy of the High School certificate was filed by the election petitioner Narendra Nath Upadhyaya This is marked as paper no. 20/3 of the file of the Prescribed Authority indicating that petitioner Ruber Nath Tewari, having Roll Number 840147 and born on 1-7-1958. had passed High School examination from Sewa Sangh Inter College, Sohawan. Ballia II Division. 20/3 of the file of the Prescribed Authority indicating that petitioner Ruber Nath Tewari, having Roll Number 840147 and born on 1-7-1958. had passed High School examination from Sewa Sangh Inter College, Sohawan. Ballia II Division. In para 3 of the "Written Statement" to the Election petition, the petitioner has said (translation by the Court) "that the respondent's real date of birth is 1-3 1956 and the horoscope proves the said date....the guardian of the respondent has got recorded less age than the real in the school so that in future after leaving the school the age limit for employment is not crossed. Fur this reason the age of the respondent was shown less in the Kutumb Register." 8. The aforesaid extract from the written Statement makes it clear that it is not denied or even disputed by the petitioner that the date of birth in the High School certificate is factually written as 1-7-1958. What was objected to was that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 1-3-1936 which was not mentioned In the certificate by his guardian. In this connection one of the arguments of Sri Sankatha Rat learned counsel for the petitioner that a photo copy of the High School Certificate was not admissible fails in view of the said admission of the petitioner. It may be remembered that procedural-laws are enacted to enhance the cause of justice and none of those provisions should be interpreted to stand in the way of administration of justice. When a party initially admits the contents of a document Itself when his evidence produced in rebuttal of the contents thereof has been concurrently found to be false and fabricated by the authority or the Court, such a challenge to the admissibility has to be rejected outright as an after thought and a belated legal ingenuity. 9. A look at the two affidavits is necessary which are rarer nos. 48/1 and 49/1 of the record of the Prescribed Authority. Sri Deo Murari Pandey says in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that be bad drawn- up the horoscope (Kundli) about twenty five years ago as per the date, time and eithi told to him by Sri Hari Shanker Tewari, the father of the petitioner. 48/1 and 49/1 of the record of the Prescribed Authority. Sri Deo Murari Pandey says in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that be bad drawn- up the horoscope (Kundli) about twenty five years ago as per the date, time and eithi told to him by Sri Hari Shanker Tewari, the father of the petitioner. According to the horoscope's contents, the petitioner was born on 1-3-1956 corresponding to "Samvat 2022 Shaka 1877 Chaitya Mash Krishna Pakash Ki Shasthi Var Ravivar Samai Aath Baje Subah Ki Hal." 10. Sri Hari Shanker Tewari has sworn in para 2 of his affidavit that the date of birth of the petitioner Ruber Nath Tewari is 1-3-1956. The horoscope also, as noted above, indicates the date of birth of petitioner as 1-3-1956 as stated in the affidavit of Deo Murari Pandey. The prescribed Authority, has found that neither 'English' date 1-3-1956 nor the Shaka-Samvat date falls on a Sunday and therefore, the said horoscope indicating the date of birth as 1-3-1956 is a false document. While recording these findings the prescribed Authority has referred to the two affidavits, one of Purohit and the other of Hari Shanker Tewari. the father but has not specifically discussed the affidavit of the father. Sri J. S. Audichya, learned counsel for the opposite party rightly argued that in view of the findings of the Prescribed Authority that (1) the contents of the horoscope is based upon the alleged date of birth given out by petitioner's father and, 2 that the purohit's statement about the date of birth is wrong and the Kundli is wrong and false, no useful purpose would have been served by repeating the contents of the affidavit of the father. In this connection it was further pointed out that in the affidavit of Deo Murari Pandey there is interpolation in the Samvat year. The typographical words are 2022 but overwritten by hand as 2012 as would appear from the certified copy obtained prior to making of the correction in the affidavit. The learned counsel wanted to file that copy and argue that the interpolation has been made daring the proceedings and after the filing of the affidavit This point need not be gone into as nothing turns on the year being 2012 or 2022 for the simple reason that the date of birth 1-3-1956 has been held to be a wrong date of birth. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of the courts below that neither 1-3-1956 nor the corresponding Shaka-Samvat date fell on Sunday (Ravivar). It obviously follows that the father and the Purohit have come out with a false date of birth of the petitioner and to support their false statements, have fabricated the forged horoscope (Kundli). Therefore, it is implicit in the order of the courts below that they have taken note of the contents of the affidavit of Hari Shanker Tewari and have rightly rejected the evidence produced by the petitioner to prove his date of birth as 1-3-1956. 11. Now I come to the question as to whether on these facts the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan (Supra) is applicable or not. When a party states another date as his date of birth and leads evidence which is found to be false and forged, the date of birth noted admittedly in the High School certificate has to be made the basis of the date of birth. Therefore, in the instant case there is no option but to hold that the said date of birth given in the High School Certificate as the correct date of birth for the purpose of deciding the election petition. 12. The Kutumb register has its own tale to tell. The extract filed was issued during the pendency of the Election petition and the copy was certified by the petitioner. The said extract was never marie the basis as a proof of date of birth of the petitioner in the two courts below. During the course of arguments many points were hinted at throwing enough doubt about the preparation and maintenance of the register and issuing of the extract thereof. However, since the horoscope has been found to be forged and the extract seeks to give out the same forged date of birth, it was perhaps rightly not relied upon in the courts below as a corroborative evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion the other points raised do not require any further discussion. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the observations made in AIR 1989 Alld., 17, AIR 1987 Alld. 83 that High School certificate cannot be used as evidence for correct date of birth. In view of the aforesaid discussion the other points raised do not require any further discussion. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the observations made in AIR 1989 Alld., 17, AIR 1987 Alld. 83 that High School certificate cannot be used as evidence for correct date of birth. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated on the basis of AIR 1960 SC 941 , that the Prescribed Authority has not abided by the remand order. He has further relied upon 1986 UP LB EC, 292. On the same point he has further relied upon 1979 RD 135. to substantiate that argumeat. Similarly. Sri J. S. Audichya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has cited 1978 ALR 147. 1965 ALI 314, 1988 OP LB EC 307 and AIR 1954 SC 520 . 13. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the Prescribed Authority has fully followed the mandate in the remand order and has made correct appreciation of the evidence produced before him and that order has been rightly upheld in revision by the Addl. District Judge. Ballia and, therefore, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed the original record shall be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.