The main legal point established is that the amended provisions of section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, disentitle an Adhyaksha/Up-Adhyaksha removed for misconduct or abuse of powers from contesting any election until five years from the date of such removal.

Heard Mr. Ravindra Giriyagye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on for the private respondents.

2. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the Election Tribunal –cum- Sub-Judge-IV, Jehanabad in Election Petition No.03 of 2011, whereby the election of the petitioner to the post of Member, Zila Parishad has been set aside.

The facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner had earlier contested a similar election in the year 2006 and was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of the Zila Parishad. A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of section 70(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act?) as it then existed and vide order passed on 9.1.2008, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya removed the petitioner from the Chairmanship of the Zila Parishad. As the forum of appeal at the relevant time was available to a party aggrieved under section 70(5) of „the Act?, the petitioner questioned such order before the Member, Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 12.12.2008 and being aggrieved the petitioner questioned the order in CWJC No.2375 of 2009 which again has been dismissed vide order passed on 9.2.2009 and against which order of the Writ Court the petitioner has filed an intra court appeal bearing L.P.A. No.894 of 2010 which is pending consideration before the Division Bench.

4. In the meanwhile and on the expiry of the term of Zila Parishad, the next election was notified in 2011 and responding thereto the petitioner filed his nomination on 3.3.2011 and was again returned in the election which was questioned by the private respondents through the election case in question and which has been allowed and the election of the petitioner has been set aside, inter alia, relying upon the provisions of section 70(5) of „the Act? as it stands after amendment and which disentitles the Adhyaksha/Up-Adhyaksha of Zila Parishad removed for misconduct or abuse of powers, from contesting any election until expiry of five years from the date of such removal under section 70(5) of „the Act?.

5. Mr. Ravindra Giriyagye, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner, the State is represented by the State Counsel and the private respondents are represented by Mr. Shivendra Prasad.

6. The arguments advanced by Mr. Giriyagye to contest the impugned order relying upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 783 (Kumari Shobha Sinha vs. The State of Bihar) is that the removal of the petitioner took place on 9.1.2008 and when unamended provisions of section 70(5) of „the Act? merely provided that the ousted Adhyaksha/Up-Adhyaksha so removed shall not be entitled for re-election during the remaining of the term. He submits that the said term existed until 2011 and during which no election took place rather even after removal as Adhyaksha, the petitioner continued as a Member. It is stated that the petitioner having suffered the penalty as envisaged under the unamended provisions of section 70(5) of „the Act? he cannot be penalized again under the amended provisions. He further submits that although the petitioner has been unsuccessful in his contest against the impugned orders before the statutory authority as well as before this Court but the matter is now pending consideration before the Division Bench in the Letter Patent Appeal.

7. The argument of Mr. Giriyagye has been contested by learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the private respondents on the sole ground that the amended provisions providing for disqualification of Adhyaksha who stands removed under section 70(5) of „the Act? is until five years from the expiry of the date of such removal and thus his election is void.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on recor.

9. The facts are not in dispute rather it