Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Shri C.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. In spite of repeated time having been granted by the Court no counter-affidavit was filed, as a result whereof, the Court had to summon the concerned officials. Today a short counter-affidavit supported with an application has been filed by Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ghazipur stating therein that unqualified apology is being tendered for the delay caused in providing assistance to the Court and another short counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri Jitendra Mohan Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jakhaniya, Ghazipur stating therein that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the District Magistrate passed an order restraining the respondent No. 7 from functioning as Gram Pradhan. Keeping in view the allegations as contained in the writ petition, the functions of the Gram Pradhan are being carried out by a person appointed and deputed vide order dated 17.12.2007.

3. This writ petition has been filed on the ground that the respondent No. 7-Shyam Narain has been convicted in a criminal case under Section 302, I.P.C. and has been awarded a punishment of life imprisonment, and as such in view of the provisions of Section 5-A(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the respondent No. 7 could have neither contested the election of the Gram Pradhan nor could have been elected and therefore a writ of quo warranto should be issued to prevent the respondent No. 7 to function as such as he is totally disqualified to hold any such public office. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Tehsildar rejecting the petitioner’s representation.

4. Notices were issued and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7 as well.

5. The fact that the respondent No. 7 has been convicted in a criminal case has not been disputed. It has further been stated that the respondent No. 7 did not conceal this fact at the time when the nomination was filed. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the removal of the answering respondent can be brought about only by an appropriate election petition or under a procedure prescribed in any law for the time being in force for such purpose. It has further been submitted that a criminal appeal filed against the said conviction is still pending before this Court and, therefore, the said conviction should not be taken to be a disqualification.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that it appears that it was on account of an erroneous calculation of the period of 5 years as provided for under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994. He contends that so far as the question of continuance or otherwise of the respondent No. 7 is concerned, the same has to be construed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and the authorities are equally bound by it. He contends that so far as the election of the respondent No. 7 has not been set aside under any election petition or any other proceeding provided for in law. He submits that the records have already been filed along with the writ petition and there is nothing which is required to be added on facts. He contends that the criminal appeal, which is pending before this Court, would finally decide the fate of the respondent No. 7.

7. The petitioner had earlier come up before this Court for a quo warranto in Writ Petition No. 62339 of 2006 alleging the aforesaid disqualification. The petition was disposed of on 16.11.2006 with a direction to approach the Presiding Officer who was to take a decision in the matter. The impugned order dated 30.3.2007 was passed holding that no authority could be shown to the