By The Court—This is an appeal against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief against the order dated 8.6.2011 whereby the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has been disqualified from holding the post of Pradhan to which he has been elected. 2. The appellant has purportedly been removed on the ground that on the date he contested the election, he was less than 21 years of age. Respondent no. 5 is the husband of the defeated candidate who has filed election petition in which this ground has also been raised. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel draws our attention to Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:- 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) ... ... ... (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except 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. 4. It is submitted based on the aforesaid provision that if the disqualification was at the time the appellant contested the election or in the course of the contest, the only remedy would be by way of an election petition. Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for filing an Election Petition. 5. In the instant case, the defeated candidate has taken recourse to this remedy and the matter is alive before the Election Commission. It is submitted that insofar as the electoral roll is concerned, the appellant is shown as duly qualified in terms of age for contesting the election. His nomination paper was accepted after rejecting the very objection raised before the Collector. 6. On the other hand, on behalf of the State respondents as also the private respondent, it is contended that it was within the jurisdiction of the Collector, considering the powers conferred by Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act to have exercised jurisdiction and disqualified the appellant herein from holding the post of Pradhan as the school certificate admittedly shows that on the date, the appellant contested the election, he was not duly qualified in terms of age for being elected to the post of Pradhan. 7. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. By virtue of the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, in Part IX of the Constitution, special provision has been made insofar as Panchayats are concerned including elections to Panchayat, which are governed by Articles 243-A. Article 243-F provides for disqualifications. 9. The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides for various rights, disqualifications and remedies as set out thereunder. Section 5-A is the provision for disqualification. 10. Sub-clause (a) of Section 5-A reads as under:- “5-A. Disqualification of membership - A personal shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, [the Pradhan or] a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he– (a) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections of the State Legislature; Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years;” 11. Section 6-A of the Act, thereafter, sets out as under: “If any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 5-A or in sub-section (1) of Section 6, the question shall be referred to the prescribed authority for his decision and his decision shall, subject to the result of any appeal as may be prescribed, be final.” 12. It appears, prima facie, that the above provision may cover disqualification incurred after the election. 13. Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act confers on the State Government power of removal of a Pradhan, if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A. 14. The relevant provisions read as under: “95. Inspection - (1) The State Government may— (a)... ... ... (g) remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he – i- ... ... ... v- suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A;” 15. Under Section 96-A, the State Government may delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it, subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose. ... ... v- suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A;” 15. Under Section 96-A, the State Government may delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it, subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose. The State Government, it appears, has conferred power under Section 95 (1) (g) (v) on the Collector. 16. Section 12-C provides for an election petition. 17. We may now advert to some of the judgements referred at the Bar. In the case of Hoti Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (3) AWC 1761 , a learned Single Judge after considering the ambit of Articles 243-F and 243-O held that the newly inserted provisions in sub-clause (iiia) after sub-clause (iii) in Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 are ultra vires the mandatory provisions enshrined under Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution and accordingly struck down the same. 18. Our attention was also invited to the judgement in the case of Amrendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (2) ALJ 260 (DB) wherein recourse had been taken to Section 6A. The learned Division Bench observed that the provision of Section 6A would be applicable only where there is some dispute or doubt with respect to disqualification of person concerned. In a case where disqualification is writ large and there is no dispute at all, no assistance can be taken by referring to Section 6A of the Act. 19. The question for our consideration, on these facts, would be whether the appellant herein was entitled to any interim relief ? The appellant’s nomination was accepted even though objection was raised as to his age. The issue as to whether the appellant was qualified or not, is a question of fact to be decided in the election petition, which has already been filed by the defeated candidate. In these circumstances, would it be open to the Collector when a competent Tribunal having jurisdiction is seized of the matter to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 95 of the Act, 1947. In our opinion, the said Section would have to be so read so as not to offend the constitutional mandate as set out under Article 243-O (b) and Section 95 of the Act. In our opinion, the said Section would have to be so read so as not to offend the constitutional mandate as set out under Article 243-O (b) and Section 95 of the Act. There could be a situation where a candidate may have incurred disqualification at the time of contesting the election but an objection on that count was not raised and the disqualification subsists. In such a situation, perhaps there could be no bar in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 95 for the Collector to consider the issue. That issue is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. However, when an election petition to challenge the disqualification on the very same ground has been filed under Section 12-C of the Act and the proceedings are before the Election Tribunal, then it is not open to the delegate of the State Government under Section 95 to exercise jurisdiction under Section 95 during the pendency of that petition, as otherwise the mandate of Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution would be infracted. 20. In our opinion, the petition raises serious questions to be considered. Prima facie, the objection as to the appellant’s age was rejected and until his election is set aside in the election petition, the appellant is entitled to continue in office. We are of the opinion that in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.6.2011 is prima facie liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to continue in office till the decision in the pending election petition filed by the wife of respondent no. 5, who was the defeated candidate. 21. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 24.6.2011 is set aside. The order dated 8.6.2011 passed by the District Magistrate is stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the election petition. The appellant to discharge his function as a Pradhan. 22. Considering the controversy, the authority to dispose of the election petition at the earliest, but not later than 4 months on the appellant’s or the contesting respondent serving a certified copy of this order. (Appeal allowed) _____________