Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—The present writ petition raises a question of general importance, which can be formulated as under:

“Whether a Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, who has been convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine and also having been convicted under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. wherein he has been awarded ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, can be allowed to continue on his post of Block Pramukh, on being released on bail after conviction or he incurs a disqualification under Section 13 of Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, which would debar him to continue as such, unless either exonerated/acquitted of the aforesaid charges in appeal, or the disqualification ceases after the prescribed period.”

2. In the elections held for Kshettra Panchayat, Jagdishpur, the petitioner was elected as a member and the opposite party No. 7 after being elected as ‘member’, was elected Block Pramukh. The election took place in the year 2005. At the time of his election, the opposite party No. 7 was in jail and he continued to be in jail till he was released on bail under the orders passed by the High Court in criminal appeal.

3. Initially when this writ petition was filed against an order dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Chief Development Officer, Sultanpur, by means of which the Block Pramukh, namely, Rajesh Vikram Singh, opposite party No. 7, while in jail under lawful custody being charged of committing a criminal offence, was allowed to discharge the functions of Block Pramukh from jail, an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the opposite party No. 7 from discharging the functions of Pramukh from jail and the Up-Pramukh was allowed to discharge the functions of Pramukh, till he was released from jail. It was further provided that in case Up-Pramukh was also not available then the District Magistrate shall make temporary arrangement in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

4. During pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party No. 7 was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2004 alongwith Sessions Trial Nos. 388-A, 464 and 389 of 2004 (which were clubbed and tried together) convicting the opposite party No. 7 under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and awarding a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- respectively.

5. The writ petition was thereafter amended and the very right of opposite party No. 7 to continue as Pramukh was challenged.

6. In Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2008 preferred by opposite party No. 7, the High Court granted bail vide its order dated 9.9.08 but the conviction was not stayed. The opposite party No. 7 thereafter moved an application in Criminal Appeal, namely, Cr. Misc. Application No. 87189 of 2008 for suspension/stay of the order of conviction and sentence, in which the High Court passed an order on 25.9.2008, staying the execution of the sentence and disposed of the said application. The High Court passed the following orders:

“Heard.

In continuation of our order dated 9.9.2008 it is hereby directed that the execution of sentence passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 388-A of 2004, 464 of 2004 and 389 of 2004 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

The application is accordingly disposed of.”

7. On bail being granted by the High Court, the opposite party No. 7 moved an application before this Court on 30.9.2008 for being allowed to function as Block Pramukh. Though no orders were passed on the application of the opposite party No. 7 in his favour but it appears that the District Magistrate allowed him to resume duties and thus, he also allowed to discharge the functions of Pramukh.

8. Taking a que from the aforesaid interim order, though the Court did not pass any order allowing the opposite party No. 7 to resume charge on bei