JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - In 1962 the petitioner was elected as Pramukh of the Kshettra Sarniti for the Hathgam Block, district Fatehpur. At the general election held in February, 1967 the petitioner was a Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh from the constituency at Haswa, a place other than the Hathgam Block. In due course the petitioner was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur considered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have vacated the office of Pramukh on his being elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State. Consequently, they issued notification fixing 31st August, 1967, for holding the election to the office of Pramukh afresh. In the present petition all this action of the respondents is challenged on the ground that the petitioner has not ceased to be the Pramukh. 2. Sec. 7 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 runs as follows : "7. Pramukh and Up-Pramukhs of Kshettra Samiti and their election - (1) Every Kshettra Samiti shall have. (a) a Pramukh who shall be elected by the members mentioned in sub-secs. (I) and (2) of Section 6 out of persons whose names are registered as electors in the Assembly rolls from any area included in the Khand and (b) one senior Up-Pramukh and one junior Up-Pramukh to be elected by members mentioned in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 6 out of themselves. The aforesaid elections shall be held by secret ballot and in the manner provided by rules which shall also provide for resolution of doubts and disputes relating to the election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs . Provided that no member of Parliament or the State Legislature nor any person who is for the time-being the Chairman of a Town Area Committee or President of a Notified Area Committee or whose age is less than thirty years shall be elected as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. (2) If any Pradhan out of the Pradhan of the constituent Gaon Sabhas is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh then notwithstanding anything in any other enactment he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan but shall continue 'ex-officio' member of the Kshettra Samiti in addition to the members mentioned in Section 6 and the Pradhan who fills the seat vacated by him shall be a member of the Kshettra Samiti. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh shall cease to hold such office when he becomes disqualified under this Act to be Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, as the case may be. (4) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh before the expiration of the terms of the Kshettra Samiti a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, shall be elected in the manner prescribed to fill the vacancy and the person elected in such vacancy shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, hold office for the residue of the terms of his predecessor. (5) A Pramukh who is not otherwise a member of the Kshettra Samiti shall 'ex-officio' be a member thereof". 3. Under the proviso to clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) a member of the State Legislature cannot be elected as Pramukh. That is a prohibition against an existing member of the Legislative Assembly from being elected in future as a Pramukh. This by itself would not mean that an existing Pramukh would become disqualified if he is subsequently elected as a member of the State Legislature. This is further strengthened by the provisions of sub-Sec. (2) which provides for the situations in which alone the Pramukh will cease to hold office of Pradhan. Under it, if a Pradhan is elected a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh they will cease to hold the office of Pradhan. If it was intended that the effect of election of a person as a member of the State Legislature was to render him liable to cease to hold the office of Pradhan, the provision like sub-sec. (2) was to be expected, but the proviso to clause (b) is entirely in different terms. Further, sub-sec. (3) of Section 7 makes a specific provision for a Pramukh to cease to hold such office. He ceases to hold the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh when he becomes disqualified under the Act to become Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. 4. Sec. 13 of the Act lays down the dis-qualifications for being elected as a Pramukh under Section 7. Under sub-sec. (8) of Section 7 the disqualifications mentioned in Section 13 would, if and when they come into existence, make the Pramukh cease to hold the office of Pramukh. Section 13 lays down various disqualifications, but the fact of being elected a member of the State legislature is not one of them. Under sub-sec. (8) of Section 7 the disqualifications mentioned in Section 13 would, if and when they come into existence, make the Pramukh cease to hold the office of Pramukh. Section 13 lays down various disqualifications, but the fact of being elected a member of the State legislature is not one of them. So it cannot be urged that election to the State Legislature makes an existing Pramukh disqualified. The proviso to clause (b) does not use the word "disqualified" when it provides that a member of the State Legislature shall not be elected as Pramukh. It is only a proviso to the procedure of election given in clause (b). Under the circumstances the respondents were in error in treating that the petitioner has ceased to hold the office of Pramukh by reason of his election to the State Legislature. The proceedings for electing the Pramukh afresh were, therefore, without jurisdiction. 5. The petitioner, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned election to the post of the Pramukh on or after 31st August, 1967 is quashed. The petitioner would be deemed to be the Pramukh of the Hathgam Block. Under the circum-stances, the parties will bear their own "Costs.