MANJU UPADHAYAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Sri Aditya Narain Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The election of gram pradhan was held on 20.4.19915. The elected pradhan Ram Raksha Pal Singh was working as pradhan. However, an election petition was filed in which the election of gram pradhan was set aside by order dated 19.9,1998. This order was not challenged by Ram Raksha Pal Singh. The respondent No. 3 issued a notification on 1.10.1999 to fill the post of pradhan, which was vacant in pursuance to the aforesaid notification another notification has been issued by respondent No. 2 on 5.10.1999 fixing dates for holding election of gram pradhan. The petitioner has challenged the notifications issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that since the elections are going to be held on 27.10.1999 which period is less than six months when the term of elected pradhan would have come to an end, the respondents cannot hold fresh elections as provided under Section 114 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. On the other hand, Sri Aditya Narain has urged that six months period will be counted from the date when the office of pradhan fell vacant. Section 114 of the Act is extracted below :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that in view of notification for holding fresh elections of Parliament, the respondents could not have notified for fresh election of pradhans. The elections of Parliament and that of Gram Pradhans are held under two different Acts. Therefore, there is no illegality if the notifications were issued to fill the vacant post of pradhan.