JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioners of these three writ petitions were elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabhas in 1972 under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1941. In February and March 1973 elections were held to constitute Kshettra Samitis under the Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, hereinafter referred to as the `Adhiniyam'. All the three petitioners were elected Up Pramukhs in their respective Kshettra Samitis. After their election as Up Pramukhs, the respondents which include the State of U.P., the District Panchayat Raj Officer, and District Election Officer treated the respective offices of Pradhan vacant, and took steps for holding election of Pradhan in the respective Gaon Sabhas. The petitioners thereupon approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to hold fresh election and to allow the petitioners to function in the office of Pradhan as they do not want to hold the office of Up-Pramukhs. 2. A Kshettra Samiti constituted under the Adhiniyam consists of, several Gaon Sabhas. All Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabhas within the territorial limits of Kshettra are its members under Section 6(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam. There are other categories of members also as provided by Sub-sec. (2) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam provides for the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. They are elected by the members of the Kshettra Samiti. A candidate for the office of Pramukh need not be a member of the Kshettra Samiti, but he must be an elector having his name on the Assembly electoral roll of the area concerned. Up-Pramukh is, however, erected by the members of the Kshettra out of themselves. No member of Parliament or State Legislature or a person who may be Chairman of the Area Committee or Notified Area Committee, even though a member of the Kshettra Samiti is entitled for election to the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh Sub-sec (2) lays down that it any Pradhan is elected as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh then in that case he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan notwithstanding anything contained in any Other enactment. The section further requires that the Pradhan who may be elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh shall continue to be ex-officio Chairman of the Kshettra Samiti and in the vacancy caused by his election as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh in the office of Pradhan shall be filed up and the person elected in that vacancy is entitled to be a member of the Kshettra Samiti under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. All the three petitioners were members of their Kshettra Samitis by virtue of being Pradhan of respective Gaon Sabbas. On their election as Up-Pramukh the respondents treated the office of Pradhan vacant. Thereupon they took filling the vacancy so caused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam was void as it practised discrimination and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that under the Adhiniyam a Pramukh or a Up-Pramukh need not be a Pradhan, nor he is required to be a member of the Kshettra Samiti. If a person not being a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the Kshettra Samiti, in that contingency he is not prohibited from holding the office or Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh simultaneously Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam, according to the learned counsel, does not prohibit the holding of both the offices in a converse, case although a Pradhan if elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is not permitted to hold both the offices. Section 7(2) thus practices discrimination without there being any reasonable basis for the same. 4. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam runs as under :- "7 Pramukh and Up-Pramukh 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. (1) 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. (1-1) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-sec. (1), the elections to the office of Pramukh and Up-Parmukhs may be held notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership of the Kshettra Samiti or the failure to choose any representative under clause (iii) Sub-sec. (1) of Section 6 or the failure to co-opt any member under Sub-sec. (2) of that section. (1-1) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-sec. (1), the elections to the office of Pramukh and Up-Parmukhs may be held notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership of the Kshettra Samiti or the failure to choose any representative under clause (iii) Sub-sec. (1) of Section 6 or the failure to co-opt any member under Sub-sec. (2) of that section. The aforesaid election 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 Pradhans of the constituent Gaon Sanas 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 be a member of the Kshettra Samiti........". 5. The provisions of Sub-sec. (2) lay down that if a Pradhan being a member of the Kshettra Samiti under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam is elected ,Pramukh or Up-Pramukh then he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan and the vacancy so caused shall be filled up by fresh election and the newly elected Pradhan shall be member of the Kshettra Samiti under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam. This provision is to over-ride the provisions contained in any other enactment including the U. P. Panchayat Raj under which Gaon Sabhas are constituted and the election of Pradhan is held. 6. The State Legislature enacted the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Adhiniyam 1961 whereby it established a system of three tier Local F elf Government for administering the rural areas of the State. Gaon Sabhas and Gaon Panchayats constituted under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 are at the lowest ladder which function at the village level while Kshettra Samitis constituted under the Adhiniyam administer a group of Gaon Sabhas having a number of representatives from various sections of society including Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabhas. Gaon Sabhas and Gaon Panchayats constituted under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 are at the lowest ladder which function at the village level while Kshettra Samitis constituted under the Adhiniyam administer a group of Gaon Sabhas having a number of representatives from various sections of society including Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabhas. The Zila Parishads constituted under the Adhiniyam are at the appex of the system. All Pramukhs of the Kshettra Samitis are members of Zila Parishads. These three bodies are required to work in an integrated manner to ensure development of rural areas. Their constitution and functioning is regulated by the two enactments, namely, the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Adhiyam 1961. The Legislature took a policy decision that two offices should not be held by a single person in the same body and for that purpose it considered it necessary to make specific provisions to that effect in the two Acts. By Section 11-D of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the legislature laid down that no person shall simultaneously be a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and a member of the Gaon Panchayat or a Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat. No member of the Gaon Sabha shall simultaneously be a Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat. No person shall hold any office in more than one Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat. The legislature followed the same scheme in Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam which lays down that no person shall hold the office of Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh simultaneously. It, further lays down that in case the same person holds both the offices viz. Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. in that contingency he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan. Similar prohibition is contained in Section 19(6) of the Adhiniyam. Under Section 18 of the Adhiniyam all Pramukhs of Kshettra Samitis established in the District are members of Zila Parishad. An Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is elected by the members of the Zila Parishad. Section 19(6) lays down that if a Pramukh is elected as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Zila Parishad, then notwithstanding anything in any other enactment he shall cease to hold the office by virtue of which he became a member of the Zila Parishad. Thus a Pramukh if elected Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, ceases to hold the office of Pramukh. Section 19(6) lays down that if a Pramukh is elected as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Zila Parishad, then notwithstanding anything in any other enactment he shall cease to hold the office by virtue of which he became a member of the Zila Parishad. Thus a Pramukh if elected Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, ceases to hold the office of Pramukh. It further contemplates that a fresh election shall be held in the vacancy so caused and the newly elected Pramukh shall be member of the Zila Parishad. The scheme laid down in the Panchayat Raj Act and the Adhiniyam make it amply clear that the Legislature intended that no person shall aim continuously hold the office of Pradhan and member of Gaon Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat in the same Gaon Sabha and Pramukh or, Up-Pramukh and Pradhan in the Kshettra Samiti and similarly Pramukh and Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha in the Zila Parishad. The above policy laid down by the Legislature is directed to prohibit monopoly of offices by a single individual so that opportunity may be available to other persons of the rural areas to participate in the aural administration and in the functioning of the Gaon Sabhas, Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishad. 7. The question then arises whether Section 7(2) practices any discrimination. The answer to the question depends on the interpretation of Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 7(2) there is no prohibition against a person holding both the offices of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha if a person comes to hold the office of Pradhan subsequent to his election of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. This interpretation defeats the vary purpose of the legislative intent Section 1(2) leaves no room for any doubt that it places a complete prohibition against holding of two offices simultaneously. It lays down that if a person comes to hold both the offices simultaneously in that event he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan. There is no choice left to the person concerned. The provisions of Section 7(2) come into play automatically, the moment the same person comes to hold both the offices simultaneously. The prohibition is not against the election but against holding both the offices simultaneously. There is no choice left to the person concerned. The provisions of Section 7(2) come into play automatically, the moment the same person comes to hold both the offices simultaneously. The prohibition is not against the election but against holding both the offices simultaneously. If a Pradhan or Up-Pramukh is subsequently elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sahba his election as Pradhan will be of no effect as he is not entitled to hold both the offices. A person elected a Pradhan under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is entitled to function in that office but Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam over-rides the provisions contained in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Hence if a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is subsequently elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, he shall not be entitled to hold the office of Pradhan even though he may have been entitled to do so under the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioners interpretation of Section 7(2) that it merely contemplates that when a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan and not otherwise cannot be accepted Sub-sec. (2) clearly lays down that the two offices cannot be held simultaneously. It applies to the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh who may be elected to the office of Pradhan subsequently. .The prohibition is applicable in both the cases. The language contained in Sub-sec. 1(2) of the Adhiniyam does not admit of any exception. It clearly lays down that legislative intent prohibiting the holdings of the two offices simultaneously. It is immaterial if a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh as elected Pradhan subsequently or a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, the result remains the same. The office of Pradhan and the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh cannot be held simultaneously, and if a person at any time comes to hold the offices simultaneously in that event he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention that Section 7(2) is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there is no provision under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act to the effect that if a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, he shall cease to be a Pradhan. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention that Section 7(2) is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there is no provision under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act to the effect that if a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, he shall cease to be a Pradhan. Therefore Pradhan elected under the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act cannot be required to vacate that office merely on his election as, Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. In my opinion, the argument ignores the voids "notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, he shall cease to mold the office of Pradhan" occurring in Sub-sec. (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam 1961, which is a 1.4er Act enacted by the State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh which enacted the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The provisions contained in Section 7(2) over-ride the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 7-(2)--therefore must prevail notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in interpreting Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam, the court should not stretch the language or fill up gaps to give effect to any legislative intent or policy if that policy or intention is not expressed in clear words even though the interpretation of Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam may lead to some result which may be against the legislative policy. The court should not add anything to the Statute instead it must interpret the section as it stands. A number of authorities were cited before me in support of this contention. I do not consider it necessary to discuss those authorities, as in my opinion, while interpreting Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam, it is not necessary to stretch the language or to fill up any gap or to add anything to Section 7(2) to effectuate the legislative policy. The, language contained in Section 7(2) of tile Adhiniyam is quite clear. It does not require any addition or filling up or gaps, it clearly lays down that same person cannot hold the office of Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh simultaneously notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law. The provision is quite clear and therefore the question of stretching the language or adding anything to the section does not arise. 10. It does not require any addition or filling up or gaps, it clearly lays down that same person cannot hold the office of Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh simultaneously notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law. The provision is quite clear and therefore the question of stretching the language or adding anything to the section does not arise. 10. The learned counsel placed reliance on Jai Narain Singh v. P.K. Pandey, 1968 A.L.J. 780. In that case the question was whether a Pramukh was required to vacate his office if subsequently he was elected a member of the Legislative Assembly. The case was confined to the interpretation of proviso to Section 7(1) (b) of the Adhiniyam. The proviso lays down that no member of the 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 a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh the pioviso lays down a prohibition against an existing member of the Legislative Assembly from being elected in future as a Pramukh. In the case of Jai Narain Singh the Court was not called upon to consider or interpret the scope of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. The learned Judge, however, referred to Sub-sec. (2) of Section 7 and thus opined : "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 as 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." The above observation would show that the learned Judge was of the opinion that the provision of Section 7(2) was quite different than that contained in proviso to Section 7(1) of the Adhiniyam and that under sub-sec. (2) no person was entitled to hold both the offices viz. of Pradhan and of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. (2) no person was entitled to hold both the offices viz. of Pradhan and of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. Therefore, in my opinion, the case of Jai Narain Singh does not lend any support to the petitioners' case. On the other hand I find that this interpretation of Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam is supported by a Division Bench, of this Court in Kunj Behari Lal v. Anu Sachiv, U. P. Shasan, Panchayat Raj Department, 1972 A.L.J. 197. The Division Bench repelled the contention that if a person was elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh at a time when he was not a Pradhan but subsequently if he was elected a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, he was not required to vacate the office of Pradhan under Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam. The Bench held that the provisions of Section 7(2) were mandatory and were of a general nature. It applied to every case where a person came to hold both the office simultaneously. The Bench observed thus : "Sec. 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." 11. In view of the above discussion the petitioners contention that if a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is subsequently re-elected Pradhan of a Gaon Sahba, he is not requited to vacate the office of Pradhan under Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam cannot be accepted. 12. Lastly it was urged that the legislature acted arbitrarily in not giving choice to the person concerned to choose one of the offices. Reference was made to Section 43 A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Under Section 43-A, Legislature has laid down a bar against holding the office of President or Vice President of a Municipal Board or of any other local body simultaneously. The proviso to that section, however, confers a choice on the person concerned. If he comes to hold two offices simultaneously he is required to indicate his choice to one of the offices within a prescribed period of time. The proviso to that section, however, confers a choice on the person concerned. If he comes to hold two offices simultaneously he is required to indicate his choice to one of the offices within a prescribed period of time. Similar provision is contained under Rule 23 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules which lays down that a person who may be elected to more than one office under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act may indicate his choice, for retaining one of the two within 30 days of the election. It is urged that even though the Adhiniyam does not contain any express provision conferring right of choice of one of the two offices, but it was implicit in it, therefore a person who is elected to hold both the offices is entitled to indicate his choice to hold one of the same. Reliance was placed on Government order which confers right of choice on the person who came to hold both the offices under the Adhiniyam. In my opinion the argument is untenable. Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam does not leave any choice. It operates automatically to create vacancy in the office of Pradhan. It does not leave any choice to the person concerned to retain the office of Pradhan. By the operation of law the person concerned vacates the office of Pradhan and continues to retain the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. In the absence of any right of choice the petitioners cannot claim any right to indicate, their choice. The legislature has not left any option to the person concerned. Any administrative interpretation of. Section 7(2) even if it be in favour of the petitioners cannot be taken into account to interpret the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam. I, therefore, find no substance in this contention also. 13. In the result the petitioners are not entitled to hold the office of Pradhan. The petition fail and are accordingly dismissed, but there will be no orders as to costs.