Sanjay Misra, J.;— Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents no.1, 2 & 3. 2. Notice need not be issued to the Respondents No.4 & 5 in view of the order being passed herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an elected Gram Pradhan and the private respondent no.5 namely Bharat Singh had filed an election petition against the same. The petitioner had filed an application for transfer of the election petition from the Court of Sri Bhairpal Singh, Up Ziladhikari, Aliganj, District Etah, which was rejected and his revision was also dismissed where against he filed Writ Petition No.58653 of 2012 before this Court which was also dismissed on 20.11.2012. The order passed by the Writ Court has been quoted in paragraph 13 of the writ petition which is reproduced hereunder:- "This petition seeks the quashing the order dated 26th September, 2012 passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh by which the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18th June, 2012 passed by the Collector, Etah, by the order dated 18th June, 2012 rejected the application for transfer of the Election Petition filed against the petitioner under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It is mentioned in the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner that the petitioner was not able to make out any case for transfer of the Election Petition. All that has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority is biased against the petitioner and a decision will be given against the petitioner. No specific reason has been mentioned as to why the Prescribed Authority is biased against the petitioner. There is, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed". 4. According to learned counsel, the earlier writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had only made vague allegations of bias against the officer and no specific reason was shown as to why the Prescribed Authority is biased against the petitioner. According to Sri Shiv Nath Singh, the petitioner has filed a second transfer application no.31 of 2012 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. According to Sri Shiv Nath Singh, the petitioner has filed a second transfer application no.31 of 2012 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. Bharat Singh) filed as annexure no.3 to this writ petition and while referring to the various paragraphs of the said application he states that the petitioner has given specific reasons with respect to bias of the Prescribed Authority, Respondent No.4, against the petitioner. He states that the said application is not being considered and hence this writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that under Rule 4(V) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules 1994, it is the District Magistrate who is the competent authority to take a decision on such a transfer application only if sufficient cause is shown by the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the transfer application, if maintainable, should be considered by the District Magistrate. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is finally disposed of by providing that the District Magistrate, Etah, in exercise of his power under Rule 4(V) of 1994 Rules should consider the transfer application no.31 of 2012 filed by the petitioner and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law taking into account the averments made in the application as to whether they would be a sufficient reason. The said exercise be completed by the District Magistrate within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 7. The petitioner will be at liberty to move an interim application for keeping the proceedings of the election petition in abeyance during the pendency of the transfer application before the District Magistrate and in case the same is moved alongwith a certified copy of this order the District Magistrate should take a decision on the application within three days and communicate the order to the petitioner forthwith. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order is passed as to costs. 10. Let a certified copy of this order by supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself. _____________