JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of decision dated 8.3.2010 taken by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mirzapur/Election Tribunal in election petition No. 7 of 2006, Rajendra Prasad v. Rekha and others, setting aside the election of the petitioner as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, District Mirzapur and further declaring Rajendra Prasad as elected Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, District Mirzapur. 2. Brief background of the case is that election for the post of Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, District Mirzapur, was held on 31.10.2006. The seat in question was reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidate. In the said election, petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were also the contestant for being elected as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, District Mirzapur. Petitioner claims to be of Kinnar community and also claimed to Scheduled caste category candidate. In the elections so held results were declared on 6.11.2006 and the petitioner was declared elected, as he had secured maximum votes. Rajendra Prasad who polled second in the aforesaid election filed election petition No. 7 of 2006, Rajendra Prasad v. Rekha and others before District Judge, Mirzapur, challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that he was not scheduled caste category candidate, rather he hailed from other backward classes, and therefore, he was not entitled to contest the election from a constituency which was reserved for scheduled caste category candidate, and in this background, it was claimed that the nomination of the petitioner ought not to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. According to the election petitioner, the petitioner Rekha, who is kinnar, is daughter of Kameshwar who was ‘’Sonar’ by caste, and comes under backward class category and not the scheduled caste. It was further mentioned that the father of the petitioner along with his family members used to reside at Sasaram in the State of Bihar in Mohalla Kothatali, Nagar Palika Sasaram, District Rohtash, and therein respective names of petitioner’s father, mother, grandmother and other family members were entered in the electoral roll of Sasaram Assembly constituency in part No. 33. Certified copy of the caste certificate of Kameshwar Seth from Sasaram, wherein his caste was shown as ‘Sonar’, which belonged to other backward classes, was also filed. Certified copy of the caste certificate of Kameshwar Seth from Sasaram, wherein his caste was shown as ‘Sonar’, which belonged to other backward classes, was also filed. Election petitioner’s stand had been that on admitted position the petitioner was daughter of Kameshwar Seth and same was fully correlated with the documents, which were produced in respect of his initial residence at Sasaram, and in such circumstances the petitioner belonged to backward class candidate and not the Scheduled caste. In order to further substantiate the aforesaid stand, the election petitioner also filed documents to show that the name of Kameshwar was also entered in the electoral roll of Nagar Palika Parishad Ahraura in Ward No. 16, Nai Bazar at serial No. 614, which was prepared in the year 2006. The names of other family members shown in the electoral roll of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, Mirzapur, were similar to those shown in the electoral roll of Sasaram, and based on the said document, it was claimed that Kameshwar who happened to be the father of the petitioner was the same person, who earlier resided at Sasaram and belonged to other backward classes. 3. Reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the pleadings mentioned in the election petition and therein stand was taken that petitioner hailed from Kinnar community, and he was told by his guru that his father’s name was Kameshwar, who was Chamar by caste. As a result of the aforesaid statement, the petitioner believes himself to be scheduled caste category candidate. It was also mentioned that Kameshwar Seth, who was shown to be resident of Sasaram was not the same person, and who has been shown to be resident of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura; was not father of the petitioner, and it was reiterated that the caste certificate was valid, and further in the electoral roll of Sasaram, name of petitioner was not there and the names of mother and brother were also different at the aforesaid two places. 4. Written statement had been filed on behalf of other co-respondents also, and thereafter issues were framed; initially four in number and on 16.3.2009, 3 additional issues were framed. 4. Written statement had been filed on behalf of other co-respondents also, and thereafter issues were framed; initially four in number and on 16.3.2009, 3 additional issues were framed. From the side of the election petitioner, Rajendra Prasad appeared as P.W.1 and filed voluminous documentary evidence, which have been referred to on pages 64, 65 and 66 of the paper book, and as far as petitioner is concerned, he appeared as D.W.1, however, no documentary evidence was filed on his behalf, and thereafter issue Nos. 1 and 2, which were in reference to the position as to whether election was liable to be cancelled or not and further as to whether the petitioner was candidate from Scheduled caste category or not? both the issues were taken up together and answered in affirmative, mentioning that the petitioner was not at all a member of Scheduled caste category, as such his election from a constituency which was reserved for scheduled caste candidate was null and void. The election petition has been allowed and the directives have been issued to declare the election petitioner as elected. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. 5. At the very outset, respondent No. 2, election petitioner represented by Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate along with Sri R.S. Yadav, Advocate, submitted that they did not intend to file any counter affidavit and further the directives which had been issued to declare Rajendra Prasad as elected as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura District Mirzapur was unsustainable, same be quashed, and the issue as to whether election Tribunal had rightly found the petitioner to be not from Scheduled caste category be decided. 6. Parties to the dispute on such an issue have been heard, and with the consent of the parties, said issue is being decided. 7. 6. Parties to the dispute on such an issue have been heard, and with the consent of the parties, said issue is being decided. 7. Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri G.K. Singh/V.K. Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, the Election Tribunal has totally transgressed and overstepped its jurisdiction, inasmuch as, this was a case of virtually no evidence to connect the petitioner with the family at Sasaram and to draw presumption that petitioner belonged to other backward classes, and not from the Scheduled caste category, in such circumstances, presumption was unsustainable and further the Tesildar’s certificate is still holding good and the said certificate could have been examined and set aside only by high powered committee, constituted as per verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 , as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Countering the said submissions, Sri R.C. Singh Advocate appearing along with Sri R.S. Yadav, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the legislature has deliberately not created any forum of appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, and in exercise of authority of judicial review, this Court cannot sit as appellate forum. There was evidence on record supported with documents, which clearly established beyond doubt that the petitioner did not hail from Scheduled caste category, he has succeeded in getting himself elected on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, which has been found to be true in the enquiry conducted by Election Tribunal, as such writ petition on the said score deserves to be dismissed. 9. Before proceeding to advert to the issue raised in the present case, as to what are the parameters of judicial review, qua the same mind is being refreshed. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. N. Khan, AIR 2000 SC 1214, has taken the view that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court should not act as appellate authority and the jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct the error of law; procedural level, if any, resulting into miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of merit by re-appreciating the evidence. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of merit by re-appreciating the evidence. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 224 has considered the scope of judicial and has opined that interference is feasible in exercise of authority of judicial review when- (i) order passed is contrary to law; (ii) relevant factors have not been considered and irrelevant factors have been considered; (iii) decision was one which a reasonable person would not have taken. 10. On the parameters as set out, facts of the present case are to be tested within the parameters of judicial review as far as proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned. 11. The petitioner had contested the election, claiming himself to be scheduled caste candidate, showing himself to be son of Kameshwar; in this regard caste certificate was also obtained by him from Tehsildar Chunar, District Mirzapur on 8.10.2005. Election of petitioner was challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not at all scheduled caste category candidate and belonged to other backward classes, and therefore, he was not entitled to contest the aforesaid election. 12. At this juncture relevant provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 are being looked into. ‘Municipality’ has been defined under Section 2 (9), meaning an institution of self-government, referred to in clause (e) of Article 243P of the the Constitution. Section 7 deals with duty of every municipality to make reasonable provision within the municipal area, qua the various items provided for as mentioned in clauses (a) to (zb). Section 8 deals with discretionary functions to make provision within the limits of municipality and with the sanction of Prescribed Authority, outside such limits, qua the matters provided for and referred to in clauses (a) to (n). Section 9 deals with the composition of municipality wherein a Chairperson has to be there; elected members; ex- officio and nominated member are to be there. Section 9A talks of reservation of seats. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 deals with reservation of office of Chairman, allotted for S.C./S.T/.O.B.C. women, in the manner provided therein, and Section 9-A (5) (1) (p) specifically deals with the number of office to be reserved. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kasambhai v. Chandubha. Section 9A talks of reservation of seats. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 deals with reservation of office of Chairman, allotted for S.C./S.T/.O.B.C. women, in the manner provided therein, and Section 9-A (5) (1) (p) specifically deals with the number of office to be reserved. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kasambhai v. Chandubha. D Rasjput, 1998 (1) SCC 283 took the view, that the idea of providing reservation for the weaker section of the society is not only to ensure their participation in the conduct of affairs of municipality but it is also an effort to improve their lot. The reservation ensures that specified minimum number of persons belonging to that category become member of municipality. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Deshraj v. Bodhraj, AIR 2008 SC 632 , has clarified the position, that person who does not belong to scheduled caste, cannot offer himself as a candidate in reserved constituency. 14. Once effective representation/participation of scheduled caste candidate is the motto, then any candidate not belonging to scheduled caste category cannot offer himself as a candidate in reserved constituency, and in case such an offer is made claiming to be from reserved category, then election of such candidate is open to challenge under Section 19 of the Act, on the ground that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for the said election, and in the said election petition, Election Tribunal as per procedure prescribed under Section 23 is entitled to make enquiry, as it deems necessary, qua the said person, and then record finding, and requisite orders under Section 25 (2) to be passed. 15. In order to establish this fact that the petitioner was not scheduled caste candidate, Rajendra Prasad appeared as P.W. 1 before the Election Tribunal and also filed documentary evidence to show and substantiate that the petitioner’s father was Kameshwar Seth, who was original resident of Sasaram, District Rohtash, State of Bihar. Documents filed were voter list of Sasaram, Bihar, duly verified by notary; Papers pertaining to Sasaram Nagar Palika Tax assessment duly verified by notary; caste certificate issued in reference to Kameshwar Seth; information furnished by Information Officer. All these documents pertaining to Sasaram, District Rohtash, Bihar were numbered as 7ga-1, 7ga-2, 7ga-3, 7ga-4, 7ga-5, 7ga10. Documents filed were voter list of Sasaram, Bihar, duly verified by notary; Papers pertaining to Sasaram Nagar Palika Tax assessment duly verified by notary; caste certificate issued in reference to Kameshwar Seth; information furnished by Information Officer. All these documents pertaining to Sasaram, District Rohtash, Bihar were numbered as 7ga-1, 7ga-2, 7ga-3, 7ga-4, 7ga-5, 7ga10. In the said direction documentary evidence was also filed that name of Kameshwar was also entered in the electoral roll of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, which was prepared in the year 2006 and therein name of other family members shown in the electoral roll of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, District Mirzapur were similar to those which were shown in the electoral roll of Nagar palika Parishad Sasaram. Documentary evidence, qua Ahraura, Mirzapur filed were Electoral Roll, Assessment proceedings etc. in the shape of paper Nos. 7ga/7 to 7ga/17; 63ga to 83ga. Election petitioner in the present case along with support of his statement and the documents obtained from Sasaram (Bihar) in the shape of electoral roll and the caste certificate, proceeded to substantiate the identity of the family, who was staying in Ward No. 16 Nagar Palika Parishad Ahraura, was the same family, who had been staying at Sasaram and belonged to other backward classes. To say that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the family of Kameshwar Seth cannot be accepted. Entire documentary evidence has been detailed out at page Nos. 64, 65 and 66 of the paper book, and the said documents along with statement of election petitioner on being considered, keeping in view the apparent printing mistake at page 71 and 72 of the paper book, the election tribunal has come to an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner is not at all scheduled caste candidate, and on migration from Sasaram, Bihar, caste will not at all change. Once the documents and evidence produced and relied on by the election petitioner clearly established that family in question had migrated from Sasaram, District Rohtash, Bihar, and there they were accepted as “other backward class” then on migration caste will not change from any count. Once the documents and evidence produced and relied on by the election petitioner clearly established that family in question had migrated from Sasaram, District Rohtash, Bihar, and there they were accepted as “other backward class” then on migration caste will not change from any count. In the present case election petitioner had discharged his burden by bringing on record oral as well as documentary evidence to show and substantiate that petitioner has stage managed himself as scheduled caste category candidate, then in such situation burden was on petitioner to show and substantiate that such opinion was incorrect opinion. Petitioner has taken stand of denial, and his claim is fully exposed from the circumstance, that he has denied his knowledge qua the electoral list prepared pertaining to his own newly built hose; he does not known the name of other persons shown in electoral list along with him, and of the fact that in the assessment register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ahraura, father’s name was shown as Kameshwar Seth. On over all assessment of evidence, after evidence has been led from both the sides, opinion has been formed, that the petitioner was not a candidate from Scheduled caste, then petitioner was ineligible to represent the Municipality, and was disqualified. 16. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence, rather on the record, there is oral evidence supported by voluminous documentary evidence, as such on the parameters of judicial review, no interference is warranted qua the said finding, as said finding of fact is not at all contrary to law, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration, and decision is one which is possible from the point of view of reasonableness and lastly there has been no miscarriage of justice; the election of the petitioner has rightly been set aside, inasmuch as once seat in question was reserved for scheduled caste candidate, then the constituency was to be represented only by such candidate and not by a candidate who has been found to be non-scheduled caste candidate. 17. 17. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that, validity of caste certificate could not have been looked into by Election Tribunal, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 , wherein following observation has been made : “The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or “doubtful” or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the Committee and the Joint/Addl. Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient made may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduced evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscated the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.” 18. The Petitioner has placed reliance on another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Noman Masood v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (2) AWC 1224, and in the case of Rasheed Ahmad v. State, Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 54695 of 2006, decided on 9.7.2008. Said judgments are of no assistance in the present case, as Constitution of India is supreme lex. Writ petition No. 54695 of 2006, decided on 9.7.2008. Said judgments are of no assistance in the present case, as Constitution of India is supreme lex. Part IX and IXA of the Constitution of India was inserted by Constitution (73rd) Amendment, through Articles 243 to 243ZG; Municipality finding special reference in Article 243-P of the Constitution and Municipal Council, under Article 243 of the Constitution. Said judgments are of no assistance in the present case, as Constitution of India is supreme lex. Part IX and IXA of the Constitution of India was inserted by Constitution (73rd) Amendment, through Articles 243 to 243ZG; Municipality finding special reference in Article 243-P of the Constitution and Municipal Council, under Article 243 of the Constitution. Said constitutional provisions, which are relevant, are quoted below : “243-P. Definitions.—In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) Committee means a Committee constituted under article 243-S; (b) district means a district in a State; (c) Metropolitan area means an area having a population of ten lakhs or more, comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more Municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous areas, specified by the Governor by public notification to be Metropolitan area for the purposes of this Part; (d) Municipal area means the territorial area of a Municipality as is notified by the Governor; (e) Municipality means an institution of self government constituted under Article 243-Q; (f) Panchayat means a Panchayat constituted under Article 243-B; (g) population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published 243-Q. Constitution of Municipalities.—(1) There shall be constituted in every State, (a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area (b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part: Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of tile area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by public notification, specify to be an industrial township (2) In this article, a transitional area, a smaller urban area or a larger urban area means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part 243-T. Reservation of seats.—(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality (2) Not less than one third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes (3) Not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality (4) The offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in article 334 (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens 243-Z. G Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243-Z A shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question expect by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” 19. From the reading of the provisions, it is clear that constitutional mandate is there qua representation and that election returned candidate has to be challenged by way of election petition as provided under law. Under U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, election can be questioned only by way of an election petition under Section 19 of the Act on the grounds specified therein that such person was not qualified to be nominated as candidate. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kurrapati Maria Das v. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan, 2009 AIR SC 2475, has reiterated that election can be challenged by way of election petition. 20. The Election Tribunal has full authority to decide the election dispute under Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and as per Section 23 of the said Act, procedure has also been given. In the present case strictly as per provisions of Section 19 read with Section 23 of the said Act, the Election Tribunal/District Judge has proceeded to give finding in terms of Section 25 of the Act. The authority of the District Judge is unfettered on the questions, which are to be decided in the election petition. In the present case, the District Judge after making such enquiries as were necessary, has found that the person whose election has been called in question has succeeded himself in getting elected though he was not from scheduled caste category. Distinction will have to be drawn, qua forum of challenge, qua validity of the certificate issued by Tehsildar. In case elections have not been held, results have not been declared, then such challenge can be made before the committee constituted as referred to in the judgment of Apex Court, and in case elections have been held, results have been declared then as per the constitutional mandate of Article 243Z-G, it has to be challenged by way of election petition , which in view of constitutional mandate is an effective remedy provided by Statute, until and unless some extra ordinary situation is noted by the court for exercising authority under Article 226 is there, as in the case of Noman Masood (supra). Certificate of being Scheduled caste is nothing but certification of existing fact. Certificate of being Scheduled caste is nothing but certification of existing fact. If the very foundation and basis existence of said fact is questioned, which goes to the root of matter, the election tribunal is free to form otherwise view, in the facts of the case, based on oral/documentary evidence produced. When seat is reserved, then the candidate has to be from the said category, and in case he is not, then he is disqualified to contest and equally disqualified to hold the office and continue with the office. Election Tribunal is fully competent to make independent enquiry, on its own, on the basis of of material produced and form its opinion as to whether incumbent is actually from the caste, for which the constituency was reserved. Any other view, will mar and dampen the spirit of constitutional mandate. The order passed by the Election Tribunal is not at all liable to be interfered with. 21. There is one patent error in the order, whereby the election petitioner has been declared elected. Such a direction in the order impugned is not at all sustainable, for the simple reason, that such a relief could have been accorded only when it was proved by way of evidence, that he had received majority votes, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of P. Mala v. M. Andi Ambal, AIR 1973 SC 2017; Rakesh Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 2345 . There is nothing on record and nothing has been indicated in the judgment, that election petitioner had received majority votes, by means of which, the election petitioner could have been declared elected, in such factual scenario, writ petition has to be allowed in part, setting aside the said part of direction declaring election petitioner as elected 22. Consequently, present writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by Election Tribunal, in so far as it declares the election petitioner as elected is hereby quashed and set aside. Rest of the order is affirmed . 23. No order as to costs. ———