Order : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Election Petition No. 01/2022-23 pending before the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for stay of the entire proceedings of Election Petition No. 01/2022-23. Consequent to an amendment application being I.A. 3194 of 2023 having been allowed by this Court vide an order dated 27.04.2023,the petitioner has mounted a challenge to the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Election Petition No. 01/2022-23 by virtue of which election of the petitioner as Mukhiya in Gram Panchayat Dubey, Marhatiya has been cancelled. 3. The factual matrix in brief is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were the contesting candidates in the election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Dubey, Marhatiya which is reserved for female candidates. The petitioner claims that she possesses all the requisite qualification essential for being elected as a Mukhiya. The petitioner attained success in the elections and was declared the elected Mukhiya and accordingly she is discharging her duties as Mukhiya. The impediment to her functioning as a Mukhiya came in the form of Election Petition No. 01/2022-23 preferred by the respondent No. 4 challenging the election on the ground of non- eligibility of the petitioner to contest the said election. Vide order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Election Petition No. 01/2022- 23, the election of the petitioner to the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Dubey, Marhatiya was cancelled. 4. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 3 does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of eligibility of the candidate as per the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and the same can only be challenged before the competent court having jurisdiction. It has been submitted that there has been no suppression on the part of the petitioner and all the documents indicating her age and qualification had been brought to the notice of the concerned authority to validate the entries made by the petitioner in the nomination form. 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has submitted that the petitioner had suppressed her real age and had fraudulently got herself elected as a Mukhiya. 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has submitted that the petitioner had suppressed her real age and had fraudulently got herself elected as a Mukhiya. The minimum prescribed age for contesting the elections is 21 years and the petitioner was less than 21 years when she had filled up the nomination form. According to Mr. Rahul Kumar vague statement was given about the educational qualification in the nomination form and in fact it is manifest that the petitioner had committed a fraud in contesting the elections of Mukhiya. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in deciding the eligibility of the petitioner in contesting the elections to the post of Mukhiya. In this contest reference may be made to Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 which reads as follows: “Section 151 Election Petition :- (1) An election held under this Act shall be called in question only by filing a petition in the prescribed manner and not otherwise, to – (i) The sub divisional officer in matters of a Gram Panchayat; (ii) The District magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner in matters of a Panchayat Samiti; and (iii) The Divisional Commissioner in matters of a Zila Parishad. (2) No such petition shall be entertained unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be examined and disposed of according to the procedure, as may be prescribed.” 7. (2) No such petition shall be entertained unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be examined and disposed of according to the procedure, as may be prescribed.” 7. The grounds for declaring an election to be void are enumerated in Section 152 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 which is quoted herein under:- “Section 152 Grounds for declaring election to be void :- (1) Subject to sub-section (2), if the prescribed authority is of opinion- (a) That on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) That any corrupt practice has been committed a returned candidate or his agent, or with the consent of a retuned candidate or his agent; or (c) That any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) That the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or order made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.” 8. Section 151 and Section 152 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 has to be read conjointly. While Section 151 of the Act deals with filing of Election Petitions, the grounds for declaring the election to be void are dealt with in Section 152 of the Act. As per sub section 1(a) of Section 152, it is the ‘Prescribed Authority’ who can declare the election of the returned candidate as void. While Section 151 of the Act deals with filing of Election Petitions, the grounds for declaring the election to be void are dealt with in Section 152 of the Act. As per sub section 1(a) of Section 152, it is the ‘Prescribed Authority’ who can declare the election of the returned candidate as void. ‘Prescribed Authority’ has been defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the Act which reads as under:- “Section 2(xxxiii) ...."Prescribed Authority" means an officer of a particular rank and designation appointed by the State Government under this Act or Rules made there under;” The ‘Prescribed Authority’ therefore in relation to considering an Election Petition and the eligibility or otherwise of a returned candidate for the post of Mukhiya is the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 cannot be questioned. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 reveals gross irregularities on the part of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the minimum age prescribed for contesting the elections to the post of Mukhiya is 21 years. The petitioner had manipulated her date of birth in the Aadhaar Card showing the same as 01.01.1999 thereby making herself eligible to contest the elections. However, in the first Aadhaar Card her date of birth has been mentioned as 17.05.2003. The petitioner who is an intermediate had made a vague entry in her nomination form by stating that she is a literate without giving the particulars of her educational qualifications. Indisputably, the age of the petitioner was less than 21 years when she had deposited her nomination, thereby making herself ineligible for contesting the elections to the post of Mukhiya. The impugned order dated 15.02.2023 contains appropriate reasons for cancelling the election of the petitioner as a Mukhiya and consequently having found no merit in this writ application, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending I.A. stands disposed of.