JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate assisted by Shri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devansh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed alleging that respondent no.5 has been illegally elected as Gram Pradhan. It is stated that notification for holding election of Gram Pradhans in the State of U.P. was issued by the Election Commission in the year 2021 fixing various dates for the proposed election. The election was scheduled to be held on 19.04.2021. It is stated that the petitioner as well as other contesting candidates filed their nominations for election of Gram Panchayat - Poore Dhadhu. Respondent no.5 also filed his nomination for contesting the election of Gram Panchayat on 07.04.2021. The said application was appended with an affidavit dated 06.04.2021 wherein respondent no.5 had indicated his age as 21 years, however, as per the school records, the date of birth of respondent no.5 is 14.09.2000 and thus, respondent no.5 was not aged 21 years on the date of election, however, the nomination of respondent no.5 was accepted by Assistant District Election Officer. 3. It is further on record that the petitioner and 12 other candidates contested the election and respondent no.5 was declared elected. In short, the submission is that respondent no.5 could not have participated in the election as he was under age and thus, his election was bad in law. It is argued that the acceptance of his nomination form was clearly erroneous. 4. The present petition has been filed with the following two prayers: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to declare the election of the opposite party no.5 for the post of Gram Pradhan Gram Panchayat - Poore Dhadhu held on 19.04.2021 is void ab initio as the opposite party no.5 was disqualified. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 & 3 to refer the objection/application filed by the petitioner U/S 5-A, 9-A, red with Article 243-F of the Constitution of India Us 6-A to the prescribed authority for disposal of the same. Further directions are to be issued to the opposite party no.4 who is the prescribed authority for taking decision expeditiously within the time fix by this Hon'ble Court." 5. Further directions are to be issued to the opposite party no.4 who is the prescribed authority for taking decision expeditiously within the time fix by this Hon'ble Court." 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he is not pressing the writ petition insofar as it relates to prayer no.1 and confines his prayer to prayer no.2 made in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Article 243K of the Constitution of India provides for election of the Panchayats to be held under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. In terms of the mandate casted by the Constitution, specific provisions have been incorporated under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of elections to the Panchayats as detailed in Chapter II A and III-A of the Act. 7. He places reliance on Section 5A of the said Act to impress this Court that the persons as defined under Section 5A are disqualified for being chosen as a Pradhan or a Member of the Gram Panchayat and the proviso to Section 5A(a) of the Act specifically provides that a person would be disqualified if he has not attained the age of 21 years. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on Section 6A of the Act, which confers the power on the prescribed authority to decide any question, which arises out of a contention that the person has incurred disqualification to be elected as a Pradhan or a Member of the Gram Panchayat. 9. In the light of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act, it is argued that the petitioner had filed an appropriate application after the election was over and in terms of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act, the matter is to be decided by the prescribed authority, which is not being done. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 9A of the Act, which provides for the persons who are eligible to vote and tried to impress that the person who has not completed the age of 21 years is neither eligible to vote nor can be said to be qualified to be elected as a Member of office bearer of the Gram Panchayat. 11. 11. He has also drawn my attention to Article 243F of the Constitution of India to argue that the person who has applied for being elected as a Member of the Gram Panchayat would be disqualified if he has not attained the age of 21 years. The petitioner places reliance on Annexure - 2, the form filled by respondent no.5, to argue that respondent no.5 had deliberately not disclosed his date of birth in the said form. 12. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand places reliance on Section 12C of the Act to argue that all the questions pertaining to the election can be questioned by presenting an application to the authority and challenging the election. 13. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further argues that even in terms of the mandate of Article 243O, there is a specific bar to challenge any election except by an election petition to be presented before such an authority, as may be provided for under the law. Thus, in the light of the said, he argues that the petitioner for the relief claimed is liable to be dismissed. 14. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that specific mandate of the provisions of Section 5A, Section 6A and Section 9A confer a mandatory obligation upon the prescribed to decide the question pertaining to disqualification. He argues that although the remedy of challenging the application is available under Section 12C of the Act, the petitioner has two remedies and he has the right to elect one of the said remedies and the petitioner has chosen to approach the prescribed authority by filing the application, which he bound to decide in terms of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act. 15. It is argued that the petitioner has a right to elect a remedy that he chooses to, wherever two remedies are provided in any statute. In support of the said argument, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradhesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Ors. 15. It is argued that the petitioner has a right to elect a remedy that he chooses to, wherever two remedies are provided in any statute. In support of the said argument, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradhesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Ors. - AIR 1994 SC 2151 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the powers of the Financial Corporation constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in respect of their remedies available for recovery of the dues under Sections 29 & 31 and in view of that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered that both the remedies were available and it was upon the Financial Corporation to have elected either of the said remedies. 16. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court Dated 15.07.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.14674 (MS) of 2021 (Mohammad Yunus v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to file an appropriate application and the prescribed authority was directed to take a decision thereupon in terms of Section 6A of the Act. 17. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Srimati Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. - Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56318 of 2010 decided on 28.10.2010 wherein this Court was considering the issue as to whether shiksha mitra would fall within the definition of a person holding the office of profit. 18. He lastly relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Shyam Dulari Devi v. State of U.P. - AIR 2005 Allahabad 388 wherein this Court had held that such disputes pertaining to the election can be raised only by filing an election petition under Section 12C of the Act. 19. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is to consider whether the prayer made by the petitioner for directing the prescribed authority to decide the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act is to be granted more so in view of the fact that the elections have already come to an end. 20. The documents on record bears that the election petition has already been filed, although not by the petitioner by a third person namely Mahendra Kumar, which is pending consideration. 21. 20. The documents on record bears that the election petition has already been filed, although not by the petitioner by a third person namely Mahendra Kumar, which is pending consideration. 21. Before adverting to the disputes raised in the present petition, it is essential to see the scheme of Chapter - II A and IIIA of the Act. 22. Chapter II A of the act provides for disqualification of members of gram panchayat and electoral rolls, etc. 23. Section 5A elaborates the disqualifications elaborated for persons desirous of being chosen as pradhan or a member of gram panchayat. Section 5A(a) is quoted hereinbelow: "5-A. Disqualification of membership - A person 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 to the State Legislature; Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age, if he has attained the age of 21 years ..................." 24. Section 6A of the Act confers the powers on the prescribed authority to decide any challenge regarding disqualification incurred under Section 5A. Section 6A reads as under: "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 qu3stion 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." 25. Section 9 of the said chapter mandates for preparation of electoral roll for each territorial constituencies. 26. Chapter III A was inserted in the Act by virtue of amending Act No 9 of 1994 and provides for Pradhan and elaborates the manner of electing the Pradhan. 27. Section 11B of the Act provides for election of Pradhan. Section 11D of the Act makes certain further prohibitions in respect of the persons who are seeking election as a Pradhan. Section 12A of the Act provides for the manner of election to the office of Pradhan or a Member of Gram Panchayat and provides that they shall be elected through a secret ballot. Section 11D of the Act makes certain further prohibitions in respect of the persons who are seeking election as a Pradhan. Section 12A of the Act provides for the manner of election to the office of Pradhan or a Member of Gram Panchayat and provides that they shall be elected through a secret ballot. Section 12BB confers the power of superintendence of election on the State Election Commission and Section 12C of the Act specifically provides for challenge to the person appointed as Pradhan or a Member of Gram Panchayat and specifically prohibits that the same shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and the manner as may be prescribed on the grounds as laid down under Section 12C of the Act. Section 12C of the Act is quoted herein below: "12-C. Application for questioning the elections - (1) The election of a person as Pradhan or as member of a 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 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) 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 of any person whomsoever, with the object, directly, or indirectly of inducing - (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or 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 ex-communication 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 or 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 generality of the powers to be prescribed under subsection (4) the rules may provide for summary hearing and disposal of an application under sub-section (1). (5) Without prejudice to generality of the powers to be prescribed under subsection (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 re-hearing 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." 28. From the scheme of the two chapters that is Chapter II A and Chapter III A it is clear that the Chapter II A of the Act can be termed as a step prior to holding of the elections and provides for disqualification under Section 5A in respect of persons who are desirous of being chosen as Pradhan or a Member of Gram Panchayat with powers being conferred on prescribed authority for deciding any question pertaining to disqualification under Section 6 A. whereas Chapter III A provides for manner of holding elections. 29. In the light of the scheme of two chapters as elaborated above, the submission of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as it would provide for incongruity in between the two remedies provided under the two chapters. 30. 29. In the light of the scheme of two chapters as elaborated above, the submission of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as it would provide for incongruity in between the two remedies provided under the two chapters. 30. Scheme of Chapter II A is clear and makes provisions for decision on all the disputes, which arise prior to election being held, in terms of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act whereas in terms of Chapter III-A, once the election process starts and culminates, the challenge to the election can be done only by virtue of preferring an election petition under Section 12C of the Act, to clarify, the powers exercised by prescribed authority prior to holding of the elections pertaining to disqualifications are to be decided in terms of the mandate of Section 6A of the Act, however, once the election process starts any challenge to the election can take place only by filing an election petition under Section 12C of the Act. 31. If the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted to the effect that two remedies are available to any person to challenge the election it would result in incongruities, which on the face of the scheme of the Act does not appear to be acceptable. It is well settled that any interpretation which results in absurdities and does not lead to harmonious interpretation is to be avoided. 32. The interpretation as recorded above is also in consonance with the mandate of Article 243O of the Constitution of India. Any other interpretation especially interpretation as argued by counsel for the petitioner would be clearly in conflict with mandate of Article 243O of the Constitution of India. 33. The other submission of counsel for the petitioner that neither now he is a stop from filing an election petition as being beyond limitation and thus the petitioner's application under Section 5A of the Act should be decided, cannot be accepted in view of the findings recorded by me hereinabove to the effect that the only recourse available after the elections are held is to file an election petition as prescribed under Section 12C of the Act. 34. 34. The judgment in the case of Mohammad Yunus (supra) does not consider the scheme of the Act and intent of Section 12C of the Act and Article 243O of the Constitution of India, thus, the same cannot benefit the petitioner in any manner. 35. The judgment in the case of Srimati Sarita Devi (supra) also does not go into the question of available forum for challenging the election and only decides the issue of "office of profit" and thus would not have any bearing on the present case. 36. The judgment in the case of Smt. Shyam Dulari Devi (supra) although does not consider the issue of Chapter II-A and Chapter III-A in detail, however, notices the bar created by virtue of Article 243O of the Constitution of India and Section 12C of the Act and unequivocally holds that the remedy is preferring election petition under Section 12C of the Act when the occasion to challenge the election arises. 37. The judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (supra) will not have any bearing on the case inasmuch as the remedies available under the Act are twofold; one which arise prior to holding of the election and second which is provided for after the elections are held. Thus, the two remedies do not operate simultaneously and in the same sphere, as such, the said judgment has no applicability in the present case. 38. In view of the findings as recorded above and considering the scheme of the Act, the relief as pressed by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.