K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) Having hearned learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to find any merit in this writ Petition.
(2.) The admitted facts are that one Mata Badal was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Sangipur. His election was subsequently set aside. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in this Court. In the writ petition he obtained an interim order suspending the operation of the order by which he had been removed. Duning this period of interim stay, Mala Badal nominated the petitioner as Pradhan in his place under rule 46-A of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Subsequently, the stay order was vacated by the High Court. The question that arose before the Sub-Divisional Officer was whether the petitioner who had been nominated by Mata Badal could function as the Pradhan after the vacation of the stay order.
(3.) The petitioner bad been nominated under rule 46-A which applies in a case where Pradhan or Up-Pradhan because of their absence could not function. Id such a contingency, he may nominate in wring a member of the Gaon Pam. hay at and such member shall during such absence exercise all the powers and pet form all duties of the Pradhan conferred or assigned by or under the Act. The power to nominate, therefore, could last only so long as the Pradhan is absent from the scene.;