SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri. Brij Raj Singh, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) Respondent no. 4 is the elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Lona, District Jalaun at Orai. The respondent no. 4 was convicted under Section 364A IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment through judgment and order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), District Jalaun at Orai. Respondent no. 4 challenged his conviction through Criminal Appeal No. 6440 of 2017 filed in this Court and vide order dated 30.3.2018 passed in the aforesaid appeal, respondent no. 4 was released on bail. While respondent no. 4 was in jail, an order dated 9.3.2018 was passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai whereby the petitioner, who is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, was asked to discharge the functions of the Gram Pradhan. Further, while respondent no. 4 was still in jail, an application dated 2.2.2018 was also filed by one Veer Singh before the District Magistrate stating that under Section 5-A(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1947'), respondent no. 4 was disqualified to hold the post of a Gram Pradhan and therefore he may be removed from the same. A notice dated 27.2.2018 was issued by the District Magistrate, Jalaun to respondent no. 4 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the post of Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) and to the aforesaid show cause notice, a reply was submitted by the wife of respondent no. 4 on 6.4.2018 which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. However, no orders have yet been passed by the District Magistrate in the enquiry instituted through the show cause notice dated 27.2.2018. Meanwhile, respondent no. 4 was released on bail and therefore the District Magistrate vide his order dated 19.5.2018 permitted the respondent no. 4 to function as Gram Pradhan and exercise the powers vested in a Gram Pradhan. The order dated 19.5.2018 has been challenged in the present writ petition and a further prayer has been made that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to function as the Gram Pradhan of the village.
(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of Section 5-A(g) of the Act, 1947, the respondent no. 4 is disqualified to hold the office of Gram Pradhan and the District Magistrate has acted illegally by permitting respondent no. 4 to function as Gram Pradhan and exercise the powers vested in a Gram Pradhan, vide his order dated 19.5.2018. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as before the order dated 19.5.2018, the petitioner was functioning as Gram Pradhan, he is entitled to continue to function as such and the order dated 19.5.2018 is liable to be set-aside.;