JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The Appellant was in January 1961 elected as the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Sednagar. Upon an election petition, the Appellant's election was, however, set aside by the Tribunal in August, 1961. One Bhagwati Saran was declared elected Pradhan of that Gaon Sabha in place of the Appellant. The Appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed. He then filed a special appeal. He succeeded in the special appeal. It was allowed on 11-9-1962. The Tribunal's order was quashed with the result that the Appellant was declared to have been validly elected as Pradhan. 2. During the pendency of these proceedings the Appellant was in April 1962 elected a member of Kshettra Samiti, Dakor u/s 6(1)(iii) of the Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam. Under this clause elected representatives of the Cooperative Societies become members of the Kshettra Samiti. On 8-7-1962 the Petitioner was elected Junior Up Pramukh of Kshettra Samiti, Dakor. 3. On 18-12-1962 the Government informed the Mukhya Adhikari Antarim Zila Parishad, Jalaun that in view of Section 7(2) of U.P. Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, the Appellant has ceased to be Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, on his election as Up Pramukh of Kshettra Samiti. Feeling aggrieved the Appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court challenging the Government's view point. The learned Single Judge upheld the view taken by the Government and dismissed the writ petition; hence this appeal. Section 6 of the Act provides- A Kshettra Samiti shall have as its members- (i) All Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabha; (ii)... ... ... ... (iii) so many representatives...of such cooperative societies or groups thereof.... 4. Thus a person can become member of the Kshettra Samiti by virtue of his holding the office of Pradhan. In Clause (iii), however, the representatives of the cooperative societies also become members of the Kshettra Samiti. In April 1962 when the Appellant was elected as a representative of the cooperative societies to be a member of the Kshettra Samiti, he was not a Pradhan because his election had been set aside and the writ petition filed by him had been dismissed, though the special appeal was pending. In the eye of law he, not being a Pradhan became entitled to seek election as a representative of the cooperative societies and became a member of the Kshettra Samiti Under Clause (iii) of Section 6. In the eye of law he, not being a Pradhan became entitled to seek election as a representative of the cooperative societies and became a member of the Kshettra Samiti Under Clause (iii) of Section 6. In this he succeeded. But subsequently when his special appeal was allowed and the order of the election tribunal quashed, the result was that in law the Appellant was recognised to have been validly elected as the Pradhan and that situation continued all along. So in the eye of law the Appellant was the duly elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha at all relevant times. 5. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that if any Pradhan out of the Pradhans of the constituent Gaon Sabha is elected Pramukh or Up Pramukh, he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan. This provision is general in nature but it does not confine its operation to only such Pramukh or Up Pramukh who though might in law be Pradhan but yet who might have become member of the Kshettra Samiti nor in that capacity but as representative of the cooperative Societies. Section 7(2) would apply to every case where the Pramukh or Up Pramukh was in law a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha as well. The intention behind this provision is that the same person should not retain the offices of the Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha and also of Pramukh or Up Pramukh. It expressly provides that when a Pradhan is elected as Pramukh or Up Pramukh, he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan. 6. In view of the mandatory character of this provision, the Appellant being, in law, Pradhan at all relevant times would cease to hold that office even if he in fact become a member of the Kshettra Samiti as a representative of the cooperative societies. In our opinion the learned Single Judge took a correct view of the law. 7. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.