Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition No. 63643 of 2005, the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) has filed this intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Session Trial No. 43 of 1993 vide judgment dated 13th August, 1997 passed by Special Judge, Sonbhadra and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further six months rigorous imprisonment. He filed an appeal No. 1272 of 1997 which was admitted on 28th July, 1997 and bail was granted. The Appellate Court passed the following order :

“Admit.

Let the appellant Amrendra Singh Kurmi s/o late Tara Chandra Singh be released on bail in S.T. No. 43 of 1993 under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act on his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.”

3. An election for the post of Gram-Pradhan, village Murdhawa was held in August 2005 for which the petitioner filed his nomination on 6th August, 2005. Polling was held on 23rd August, 2005 and result was declared on 28th August, 2005 wherein he was declared elected and the Election Officer also issued certificate declaring the petitioner elected as Gram-Pradhan village Murdhawa vide certificate dated 28th August 2005. However, it appears that a complaint was made by Sri Shyam Singh that the petitioner was disqualified having been convicted in 1997 and, therefore, could not have been declared elected as Gram-Pradhan of village Murdhawa. The said complaint as enquired into by the State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow and by order dated 22nd September, 2005 in purported exercise of power under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India read with Section 12-BB of Sanyukt Prant Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1947 Act), the State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow declared the election of the petitioner illegal and has countermanded the same. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Election Commission, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal. The Hon’ble Single Judge has found the contention of the petitioner that he was not disqualified to be incorrect. However, proceeding further, it has also taken note of certain Division Bench judgments of this Court holding that once the result of the election is declared, the State Election Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside the election but, thereafter, the Hon’ble Single Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand has declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. To complete the chain of events, it may also be placed on record that during the pendency of appeal, since, there was no stay either of the order of State Election Commission or of the Hon’ble Single Judge, fresh election on the post of Gram-Pradhan village Murdhawa was held wherein respondent No. 6, Sunil Kumar Gupta, has been elected as Pradhan of the village in question.

4. Sri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashwani Mishra has submitted that once the result of an election is declared, the Election Commission becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to uphold the result of the election in any manner and if any person is aggrieved by result of the election, the only remedy available to him is to file an election petition and, therefore, the order passed by the State Election Commission countermanding the election on the post of Pradhan is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that Article 243-K of the Constitution of India has no application in the matter and in no man