JUDGMENT V. M. Sahai, J.
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 :
"Casual vacancies to be left unfilled in certain cases,--(1) Where a vacancy occurs in any body constituted under this Act any reason of the death, resignation, removal or avoidance of the etection of a member or other office-bearer and the term of office of that member or other office-bearer would in the ordinary course of events have determined within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy, the Prescribed Authority may direct that the vacancy be left unfilled until the next general election under this Act.
(2) In the event of vacancies in the office of both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan remaining unfilled by virtue of direction made under subsection (1), the Prescribed Authority may, by order, make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of the Pradhan till a Pradhan is elected."
This section provides that no election shall be held if only six months are left for expiry of the term from the events mentioned in the section. It further provides that six months shall be counted from the date of vacancy. In the instant case, the vacancy admittedly arose on 19.9.98. Since the term of pradhan would have come to an end in April. 2000 which is more than six months from 19.9.98, there was no bar on holding the elections. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is less than six months from the date when the election is going to take place i.e.. 27.1.99 and the date when fresh elections would be held i.e.. April. 2000 it is against the provisions of Section 114, cannot be accepted. The vacancy could be directed to remain unfilled if there would have been less than six months from the date the vacancy arose and not from the dale the election was going to be held.
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.
4. I do not find any merit in this petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.