The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the creation of a new district on the membership and election process of Zila Panchayat, emphasizing that a person cannot hold dual membership in two different Z. Ps and highlighting the importance of the secrecy of the ballot in elections.

( 1 ) THE above appeal has been filed under Rule 47 of the U. P. Zila Panchayat (Election of adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes Rules), 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Rules) against the judgment and order dated 27th October. 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh in Election Petition No. 146 of 1998. Both the plaintiff madhwanand Joshi and defendant Madan Singh were elected as Members of the Zila Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as Z. P.) of Pithoragarh. During the term of the Z. P. , Pithoragarh by a notification dated 28th October, 1997, the State Government created a new district of champawat carving out a part from the district of Pithoragarh, By reason of the notification dated 18th April, 1995 issued by the State Government, the elected members of the Z. P. , pithoragarh would continue to Members of Z. P. , Champawat until a Z. P. , Champawat is established in the new district so created and then they will become members of the newly created Z. P. , Champawat. On 21st June. 1998, election of Upadhyaksha of the Z. P. , Champawat took place, in which one Jeevan Lal Verma elected from a constituency since been included in the newly created Z. P. , Champawat was prevented from voting since he was continuing as upadhyaksha of Z. P. , Pithoragarh. Despite being so prevented, he did not challenge the same nor opposed his exclusion from the list of voters for electing Upadhyaksha of Z. P. , Champawat. On 13th October, 1998, the State Government issued a notification for initiating election for the post of Adhyaksha. Jeevan Lal Verma, defendant resigned from the post of Upadhyaksha of Z. P. , pithoragarh until 29th October, 1998. Allegedly, Jeevan Lal Verma had submitted his resignation delivered to the Adhyaksha. Pithoragarh Z. P. without delivering the said resignation to the Mukhya Adhikart, Z. P. . Pithoragarh, as was required under the law. On 30th October. 1998, the election of Adhyaksha of Z. P. , Champawat took place. The plaintiff Madhwanand joshi objected to the participation of Jeevan Lal in the election on the ground that he will still be holding the post of Upadhyaksha of Z. P. , Pithoragarh. But the Nirvachan Adhikari being the district Magistrate permitted Jeevan Lal to vote after rejecting the objection raised by madhwanand Joshi. On 9th November, 1998. Madhwanand Joshi filed Election Petition No. 146 of 1998. On 16th November, 1998, a certificate was issued by the Adhyaksha Z. P. , Pithoragarh certifying that Jeevan Lal Verma had resigned from the post of Upadhyaksha of that Z. P. On 27th October, 1999, the learned District Judge allowed the Election Petition No. 146 of 1998 setting aside the election of Madan Singh declaring Madhwanand Joshi as duly elected adhyaksha of Z. P. , Champawat, which was due to take effect immediately under Rule 44 of the 1994, Rules. On 28th October, 1999, Madhwanand Joshi took oath of the office of Adhyaksha of z. P. , Champawat and assumed charge of the post.

( 2 ) THE appeal has been preferred against his order dated 26th October, 1999 passed in Election petition No. 146 of 1998 by the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh. Mr. M. S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant has also made an application for interim order restraining Madhwanand from interfering with his working as Adhyaksha of the Z. P. , Champawat. Certain orders were passed on the said application and having regard to the urgency of the matter, since notices were issued and the counsel for Madhwanand had appeared, the matter was hotly contested with regard to the interim order. In which claims and counter-claims were made by the respective parties. In order to obviate the situation, by consent of the parties, the matter was fixed for hearing on 22nd February, 2000. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties had made their submissions and concluded the argument on merit of the case, which will be referred to hereafter, and the ju