JUDGMENT : 1. Notices on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State Authorities. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation seeking following reliefs: "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 to take effective measures for enquiring into the complaint dated 13.08.2021 preferred by the petitioner regarding the functioning of opposite party no. 5 on the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat-Mohammadpur Nagara Garhi, Pargana Kasta, Tehsil-Mitauli, District-Kheri. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to disqualify the opposite party no. 5 from the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Mohammadpur Nagara Garhi, Panchayat Pargana-Kasta, Tehsil-Mitauli, District-Kheri exercising their power provided in chapter II-A Section-5-A sub rule-(c) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in the interest of justice. 4. Allow the writ petition with cost." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent no.5 has been elected as Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Mohammadpur Nagara Garhi, Pargana Kasta, Tehsil Mitauli, District Kheri in April, 2021. It is alleged that she is holding the office of profit in the capacity of being a Clerk in the respondent no.4/Bank and thus the same has attracted a disqualification for her being elected as Pradhan. He further submits that in this regard the petitioner has already preferred an application under the provisions of Section of 6A of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') and prays that the said application be directed to be decided in accordance with law within specified a time. 5. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Authorities, on the other hand, submits that once the respondent no.5 has been elected as Gram Pradhan the application under Section 6-A of the Act 1947 would not be maintainable, rather only an election petition can be filed under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 to challenge the election of the respondent no. 5 for the alleged disqualification and thus the present writ petition would not be maintainable. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what is apparent is that by means of the instant petition, though the petitioner has sought for a mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 to 3 to enquire into the complaint dated 13.08.2021 submitted by the petitioner regarding the functioning of the respondent no. 5 who admittedly has been elected as Gram Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat yet in fact the petitioner wants the respondent no. 5 to be disqualified from the post of Gram Pradhan as would be apparent from the second prayer made in the petition. The ground taken is that on account of respondent no. 5 holding an office of profit in the capacity of being a clerk under the respondent no. 4-bank, she could not have been validly elected as Gram Pradhan. Though the writ petition is couched in very innocuous terms and seeks the decision on the application/complaint filed by the petitioner by invoking the disqualification as prescribed under Section 5 A of the Act, 1947 yet, as already indicated above, the resultant effect of the same is setting aside of the election of respondent no. 5, an elected Gram Pradhan. 7. For the purpose of consideration of the said prayer, we would have to consider the provisions of Section 12 C of the Act, 1947 which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:- "12-C. Application for questioning the elections – (1) The election of a person as Pradhan [The words "of a Gaon Sabha" omitted by U.P. Act No.9 of 1994] or as member of a Gram Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as the Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 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 that – (a) the election has not been a 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 improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or; ii-by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder. (2) The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices of bribery or undue influence for the purposes of this Act (A) (1) Bribery, that is to say, any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly, of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate at any election; or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election; or as a reward to (i) a person for having so stood or not stood or having withdrawn his candidature; or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting. (B) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of a candidate or of any other person with the connivance of the candidate with the free exercise of any electoral right: Provided that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who (i) threatens any candidate, or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or any elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause. (3) The application under sub-section (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election of any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Explanation. Any person who filed a nomination paper at the election, whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. (3) The application under sub-section (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election of any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Explanation. Any person who filed a nomination paper at the election, whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. (4) The authority to whom the application under sub-section (1) is made shall, in the matter of (i) hearing of the application and the procedure to be followed at such hearing, (ii) setting aside the election, or declaring the election to be void or declaring the applicant to be duly elected or any other relief that may be granted to the petitioner, have such powers and authority as may be prescribed. (5) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers to be prescribed under sub-section (4) the rules may provide for summary hearing and disposal of an application under sub-section (1). (6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the prescribed authority upon an application under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order on any one or more of the following grounds, namely, (a) that the prescribed authority has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (7) The District Judge may dispose of the application for revision himself or may assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge, Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge under his administrative control and may recall it from any such officer or transfer it to any other such officer. (8) The revising authority mentioned in sub-section (7) shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed, and may confirm, vary or rescind the order of the prescribed authority or remand the case to the prescribed authority for rehearing and pending its decision pass such interim orders as may appear to it to be just and convenient. (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. 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. 8. The language of Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 clearly provides that the election of a person appointed as Pradhan 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. The manner prescribed is as per Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, which rules have been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 110 along with Section 12-C and 12-D of the Act, 1947. 9. Thus, once admittedly the respondent no. 5 was elected as Gram Pradhan, consequently whether the procedure sought to be adopted by the petitioner by filing of an application/complaint under Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 by invoking the disqualification against the respondent no.5 can be adopted or not, is the question which is to be considered by us. 10. For this purpose, we would have to consider the provisions of Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:- "6-A. Decision on question as to disqualification. 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." 11. The above provision requires that the question whether a person has become subject to any disqualification if arises, the said question shall be referred to the prescribed authority for his decision. Once Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 uses a phrase "whether a person has become subject to any disqualification" the same clearly indicates a stage anterior to the election inasmuch as the words used are "has become" which denote that such disqualification has been acquired anterior to election. 12. This is the interpretation of Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 as given by this Court in the case of Amrendra Singh Vs. 12. This is the interpretation of Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 as given by this Court in the case of Amrendra Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in 2006 (1) AWC 917 wherein the Court has held as under:- "The above provision require that the question whether a person has become subject to any disqualification if arises, the said question shall be referred to the prescribed authority for his decision. Section 6-A uses the phrase whether a person has become subject to any disqualification. The above words clearly indicate a stage anterior to election. The word "has become" denotes that such disqualification has been acquired anterior to election...." 13. Thus, keeping in view the interpretation given to Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 by this Court in the case of Amrendra Singh (supra) and admittedly the respondent no. 5 having been elected as a Gram Pradhan, it is apparent that an application under Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 for setting aside the election of respondent no. 5 by invoking this provision would not lie for the purpose sought by the petitioner. 14. Further, Article 243 (O) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- Article-243-O. 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. 15. From a perusal of Article 243 (O) (b) it is apparent that no election to any Panchayat can 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. 16. The respondent no. 5 having been elected as a Pradhan, as such the only manner in which the said election can be questioned, keeping in view the Article 243 (O) (b) of the Constitution of India, would be by means of an election petition under Section 12 (C) of the Act, 1947 and by no other method. 17. 16. The respondent no. 5 having been elected as a Pradhan, as such the only manner in which the said election can be questioned, keeping in view the Article 243 (O) (b) of the Constitution of India, would be by means of an election petition under Section 12 (C) of the Act, 1947 and by no other method. 17. As such, Section 6 A of the Act, 1947 would have to be read keeping in view the specific provision of Article 243 (O) (b) of the Constitution of India. 18. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Smt. Ram Kanti Vs. District Magistrate and Ors reported in 1995 AWC 1465 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- "From the above provisions, it is thus, apparent that the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer are empowered to supervise, control and conduct the election. After the election is over, they lose all jurisdiction over the matter and it is the Election Tribunal alone, which is competent to deal with the dispute arising out of or in connection with the election. The meaning of the word election and when does the election process comes to an end has been considered by the Supreme Court from time to time while deciding the cases under the R.P. Act, leading case being N.P. Punnuswami v. Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 , wherein the election was given the wide meaning so as to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. It, thus, includes the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the Legislature. Same rule was reiterated in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851 , wherein it was laid down that the election commences from the initial notification and culminates in the declaration of the return of a candidate. Election process, thus, comes to an end on the final declaration of returned candidates. As the pattern and the procedure for holding the election under the Act and the Rules is similar to that contained in the R.P. Act, the same definition of election has to be applied to the election held under the Act and the Rules. Election process, thus, comes to an end on the final declaration of returned candidates. As the pattern and the procedure for holding the election under the Act and the Rules is similar to that contained in the R.P. Act, the same definition of election has to be applied to the election held under the Act and the Rules. After the election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer lose all their jurisdiction and the only authority, which can deal with and decide any complaint regarding the election is the Election Tribunal..." (emphasis by Court) 19. Likewise, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Singh Vs. State Election Commission, U.P and Ors reported in 2000 (4) AWC 2777 has held as under:- ".....In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute, after the election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to have any jurisdiction and the only authority which can deal with and decide any complaint regarding the election is the Election Tribunal...." 20. The Apex Court in the cases of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency; AIR 1952 SC 64 and Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others; (AIR 2015 Vol-3 SCC 467) have also held likewise. 21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail other remedies that may be available to him.