Prashant Kumar, J.

In this writ application petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2006 passed in R.M.R. No. 3/2002-2003 and order dated 3.4.2002 passed in RMA No. 27/1997-98 and order dated 7.8.1997 passed in Pradhani Appointment Case No. 59 of 1996-97 by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

2. It appears that respondent no. 6 filed an application under Section 6 of Santhal pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act') for appointment on the post of Pradhan of Mauza- Bansjora on the hereditary basis vide Annexure-1 series It then appear that petitioner also applied for appointment on the post of Pradhan under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. In the said petition, it is stated that father of respondent no. 6 was dismissed from the post of Pradhan by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on the ground of misconduct hence his son (respondent no. 6) is not eligible for being appointed as Pradhan It then appears that Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 3.3.1997 (Annexure-5) had considered the objection of petitioner and decided that appointment of Pradhan of Mauza-Bansjora will be made as per the provision contained under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. Accordingly, he issued notices to the original raiyats inviting objection. "It further appears that vide order dated 7.8.1997, respondent no. 6 was appointed on the post of Pradhan of Mauza-Bansjora on the basis of majority of votes of raiyats. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner vide RMA No. 27 of 97-98, which was dismissed by order dated 3.4.2002 (Annexure-6). Against that order, petitioner filed a revision vide RMR No. 3 of 2002-2003 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka but the said revision also dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2006 (Annexure-8). Against the aforesaid orders, present writ application filed.

3. It appears that respondent nos. 1 to 5 had filed a counter affidavit in which they stated that the order passed by Respondent Nos. 2. 3 and 4 are valid and in accordance with law. Aforesaid respondent further stated that the main dispute is in between petitioner and respondent no.

6. It is worth mentioning that notice issued to respondent nos. 6 and 7 and the said notice validly served upon them. Respondent No. 6 had appeared• through Ranjan Kumar Singh. Advocate. However, no counter affidavit filed on his behalf. Respondent No. 7 did not appear.

4. It is submitted by Sri Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is admitted position that respondent no. 6 was appointed as Pradhan according to provisions contained under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that as per Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, it is imperative upon a raiyat and/or rand lord to file an application for appointment on the post of a Pradhan and then only on his application, consent of two-third Jamabandi raiyat of village can be ascertained. It is submitted that respondent no.6 not applied for appointment as Pradhan of the village under Section 5 of the afore- said Act. It is submitted that respondent No. 6 applied under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act for his appointment on the post of village Pradhan on hereditary basis. It is submitted that since respondent no. 4, after considering the objection raised by petitioner, decided that the post of Pradhan of Village-Bansjora will be filled up according to Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, impliedly he rejected the application of respondent no. 6 filed under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that respondent no. 6 had not applied for appointment on the post of Pradhan of Village-Bansjora under section 5 of the aforesaid Act, thus, the action of respondent no. 4 in appointing Respondent No. 6 as village Pradhan is wholly illegal and against the provisions of aforesaid Act. It is further submitted that as per the prescribed Rules if a village Pradhan is dismissed on the ground of misconduct, h