JUDGMENT Manoj K. Tiwari, J. - Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore all these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 3350 of 2019 are being considered. 2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have questioned validity of election of certain Members or Office Bearers of the Panchayats at the Village, Intermediate & District Levels. 3. The expression "Panchayat" has been defined under Article 243 (d) of Constitution of India, which is extracted below: "243. (d) "Panchayat" means an institution (by whatever name called) of self-government constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas;" 4. Section 2 (16) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, as amended by Act No.18 of 2020, defines expression "Panchayat" as follows: "2(16) "Panchayat" means Gram Panchayat, Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat respectively in relation to Part II, Part III and Part IV under this Act;" 5. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3350 of 2019 are extracted below: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the election result declared by respondent no. 3 for the seat "14- Haripur Jaman Singh" in Haldwani Block of District Nainital, contained as Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold fresh elections for the seat "14-Haripur Jaman Singh" in Haldwani Block of District Nainital." 6. In view of reliefs sought in these writ petitions, provision contained in Article 243-O of Constitution of India is attracted. Article 243-O is extracted below: "243-O. 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 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (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." 7. At the time when these writ petitions were filed, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the question of maintainability of the writ petitions questioning the validity of an election of an individual. However, having regard to some ambiguity in the relevant Statute regarding the Forum before whom Election Petition would be maintainable, these writ petitions were entertained by a detailed order dated 16.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3350 of 2019 and other connected petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have informed the Court that the said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal, however, the said Special Appeal was dismissed. 9. One of the primary reasons of entertaining these writ petitions was that there was no notification under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 regarding appointment/nomination of an Authority, as Prescribed Authority, who may hear the election disputes. 10. The Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 was last amended vide Act No. 18 of 2020 and the said amendment was notified on 10.06.2020. By the said amendment, inter alia, a new Section, numbered as 131- H (1) was inserted, which reads as under: "l31(H) (l) The election of a person as Pradhan or UpPradhan or as member of Gram Panchayat shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, on the ground:- (a) that this election has not been free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election or (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the acceptance or rejection of any nomination in. improper manner; or (ii) by gross failure to comply, with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed there under. (2)........... (3)......... (4)......... (5)......... improper manner; or (ii) by gross failure to comply, with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed there under. (2)........... (3)......... (4)......... (5)......... (6) Any party aggrieved by on order of the prescribed authority who shall be Assistant Collector (first class)/Pargana Magistrate of concerned Tehsidl/Pargana upon an application under subsection (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order or any one or more on the following grounds; namely (a) that the prescribed authority has exercised such jurisdiction not vested in it by law (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise such jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (7) ..... (8) ..... (9) The decision of the prescribed authority, subject to any order passed by the revising authority under this section, and every decision of the revising authority passed under this section, shall be final. (10) If any question arises that any person is legally elected as Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat or not he is eligible to be such Pramukh, UpPramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat or not then that question shall be referred to Judge which means District Judge and its includes any other subordinate Civil Judge nominated on ad hoc by District Judge under it, in prescribed manner, whose decision shall be binding and final. If Judge decides that any person is not legally elected as Prarmukh, Up-Pramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat or he is not eligible to be such Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat then he shall not remain as a Pramukh. Up-Pramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat from the date of such decision. Explanation: Duration fixed for submitting the objection regarding the election of any person in the three tier, Panchayat General election, 2019 shall commence from the date of commencement of this Act." 11. Up-Pramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat from the date of such decision. Explanation: Duration fixed for submitting the objection regarding the election of any person in the three tier, Panchayat General election, 2019 shall commence from the date of commencement of this Act." 11. A perusal of Section 131-H (1) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 reveals that election of a person as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or as Member of Gram Panchayat can be called in question only by filing an Election Petition. This provision is in consonance with Article 243-O of Constitution of India. Sub-Section 6 of Section 131-H, if read in conjunction with Sub-Section 1 of Section 131-H, leaves no room for doubt that Competent Authority to hear the election disputes in respect of Member and Office Bearers of Gram Panchayat is the Prescribed Authority, who shall be the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector, Ist Class of the concerned Tehsil/Pargana. 12. A careful reading of aforesaid provision further reveals that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority shall be revisable before the District Judge and the period of limitation for filing such Revision shall be thirty days. 13. Since the Forum is now available for challenging the election of Member and Office Bearers of Gram Panchayat, therefore, it would be open for the petitioners in the writ petitions, in which election to Gram Panchayats has been questioned, to approach the appropriate forum i.e. Prescribed Authority by raising an election dispute. 14. In other writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the election of private respondents as Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or Member of Kshettra Panchayat (Intermediate Level) or Chairman, Vice Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat (District Level) and Sub-Section 10 of Section 131-H of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, as amended vide Act No. 18 of 2020, provides that the question regarding validity of election of a person to these Offices/Posts shall be referred to and decided by the District Judge, therefore, the Forum for filing Election Petition has been provided to the petitioners in those writ petitions also. 15. In such view of the matter, it would be just and proper, if petitioners of those writ petitions are also given an opportunity to approach the appropriate forum by raising an election dispute. 16. 15. In such view of the matter, it would be just and proper, if petitioners of those writ petitions are also given an opportunity to approach the appropriate forum by raising an election dispute. 16. It is, thus, apparent from the aforesaid discussion that suitable amendments have been made in Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act for providing the forum for raising election dispute. 17. Even otherwise also, the definition of the expression "Rules", as given in Rule 2 (35) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, was amended by Act No. 09 of 2020, which was notified on 20.01.2020. The amended definition of expression "Rules" is reproduced below: "Amendment of Section 2 - 2. The Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), clause (35) of section 2 shall be substituted as follows, namely:- "(35) "Rules" means rules made under this Act but until such rules are not promulgated rules means rules promulgated under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj, 1947 and the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961." 18. By virtue of the amended definition of the expression "Rules", all the Rules framed by State of Uttar Pradesh under U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 and U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 became applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. In existing State of Uttar Pradesh, separate Rules were framed for settlement of election disputes in respect of Member and other Office Bearers of the Panchayats at the Village, Intermediate & District Level. Thus, by virtue of the amendment made in Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, vide Act No. 09 of 2020, all those Rules become applicable in State of Uttarakhand and the Forum, provided in these Rules, is also the same as has been prescribed in the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. 19. For settlement of election disputes regarding Member & other Office Bearers of Gram Panchayat, Rules known as "U.P. Panchayati Raj Act (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994" have been framed. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that Election Petition shall be filed before the Sub Divisional Officer against elections of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Member of a Gram Panchayat. The period of limitation provided in Rule 3 of the said Rules is 90 days from the date of announcement of election result. 20. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that Election Petition shall be filed before the Sub Divisional Officer against elections of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Member of a Gram Panchayat. The period of limitation provided in Rule 3 of the said Rules is 90 days from the date of announcement of election result. 20. Similarly, U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Removal of Disqualification and Settlement of Disputes Relating to Disqualification and Membership) Rules, 1994 deal with election disputes relating to Member of Kshettra Panchayat (Intermediate Level Panchayat); while, U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs & UpPamukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 are in respect of election disputes regarding Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs of Kshettra Panchayats (Intermediate Level Panchayats). In Rule 7 of the earlier Rules and Rule 35 of latter Rules, Election Petition shall lie before the District Judge. 21. Likewise, two separate Rules have been framed by State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of election disputes of Members on the one hand and Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha on the other, of Zila Panchyats (District Level Panchayats). These Rules are known as "U.P. Zila Panchyats (Settlement of Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules, 1994" and "U.P. Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994". Rule 4 of the earlier Rules and Rule 33 of the latter Rules provide for an Election Petition before the Judge. Limitation for filing such Election Petition is thirty days under both Rules. 22. The expression "Judge" has been defined under Section 2 (28) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, which reads as follows: "(28) "Judge" means the District Judge and, includes any other subordinate civil judicial officer named or designated by the District Judge in this behalf." 23. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that by the amendments made in Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the ambiguity regarding forum for filing Election Petition, has been removed. The legal position obtaining after the last amendment, which was made effective from 10.06.2020, is that (a) anyone desirous of challenging election of a person as Member or Office Bearer of a Gram Panchayat may do so by filing an Election Petition before the Prescribed Authority/ Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate of the concerned Tehsil/Pargana; (b) election petition against a person elected as Member or Office Bearer of a Kshettra Panchayat or Zila Panchayat shall be decided by the District Judge. 24. 24. The State Legislature has appended explanation to Section 131-H with a view to ameliorate the difficulty faced by the petitioners on account of ambiguity in the Legislation. The said explanation provides that limitation for filing Election Petition would start running from date of commencement of amendment Act i.e. 10.06.2020. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, have expressed an apprehension that since Sub-Section 10 of Section 131-H contemplates that the election dispute regarding Member and Office Bearer of Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchyats has to be referred to District Judge, therefore, the District Judge may refuse to entertain the Election Petition, if filed directly before him without being referred by any a competent authority. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to Section 132 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which bars the jurisdiction of this Court in election matters. 27. Since in the entire Act, there is no provision providing for the mode & manner of making reference of election dispute to the District Judge, therefore, with a view to remove any doubt, which may be raised later, in the interest of justice, this Court by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, provides that petitioners, who are aggrieved by the result of election of Members and Office Bearers of Kshettra Panchayat or Zila Panchayats can raise an election dispute by presenting the Written Petition before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate shall refer such dispute to the District Judge for adjudication and the District Judge shall thereafter enter into such reference. It would be incumbent upon the District Magistrate to refer the election dispute to the District Judge as early as possible; but, not later than 48 hours from the date of such presentation. It is further provided that limitation would stop running, the moment, the Written Petition is presented before the District Judge. 28. It would be incumbent upon the District Magistrate to refer the election dispute to the District Judge as early as possible; but, not later than 48 hours from the date of such presentation. It is further provided that limitation would stop running, the moment, the Written Petition is presented before the District Judge. 28. Since these writ petitions were entertained by this Court by passing a reasoned order, in which it was held that the remedy of filing Election Petition is not available to the petitioners in view of ambiguity in the relevant Statute and since considerable time has been spent by the petitioners in pursuing the remedy before this Court, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, it is hereby provided that if petitioners raise an election dispute by presenting Written Petition within three weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided on merits without going into the question of limitation. The question of delay in an Election Petition, filed after expiry of three weeks shall be decided by the District Judge or any subordinate judicial officer, nominated by him. 29. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.