RAJAN ROY, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) On 28.05.2018 this Court had passed the following order:- "Heard. Considering the admitted factual position that Nanku, petitioner of this writ petition was convicted of an offence under section 304 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.5000.00 by a court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 18.5.2010, although an appeal is pending against the said judgment, considering the provisions contained in section 5A(a) of the Act 1947 read with section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, prima facie, he has incurred a disqualification for being Gram Pradhan, as has been held by this Court in Writ Petition No.28344 (MS) of 2018, Rameshwar v. State of U.P. and ors., decided on 26.2.2019, especially as, section 8(4) has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomus v. Union of India and ors., (2013) 7 SCC 653, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to function as Gram Pradhan considering the aforesaid facts, without prejudice to his rights to contest this petition and all other proceedings which may be pending before this Court or before the Tribunal and raise such pleas as may be permissible in law, therefore, the interim order dated 11.7.2016 staying the order passed by the D.P.R.O., is accordingly vacated without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in these proceedings, consequently the order of the District Magistrate ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner-Pradhan which, as informed, he had withdrawn on account of subsistence of the said order, shall stand revived and the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall stand ceased until further orders. Meanwhile alternative arrangement shall be made by the District Magistrate. List this case alongwith Writ Petition No.11666 (MB) of 2015, Arvind v. State of U.P. and ors., which is now cognizable by a Single Judge Bench, as is evident from the ordersheet and is being listed before a Single Judge Bench in the 2nd week of July, 2019. Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State shall communicate this order to the Collector concerned for compliance."
(3.) Against the order dated 28.05.2019 Special Appeal No.252 of 2019 has been filed wherein the Division Bench has passed an order dated 07.06.2019 in the following terms: "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State-respondent. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Writ Court by which the interim order granted earlier on 11.07.2016 has been vacated. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order has been passed without looking into the Rules and on the basis of a judgment which related to Representation of the People's Act, 1951 and was not related to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. ;