JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Having hearned learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to find any merit in this writ Petition. 2. The admitted facts are that one Mata Badal was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Sangipur. His election was subsequently set aside. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in this Court. In the writ petition he obtained an interim order suspending the operation of the order by which he had been removed. Duning this period of interim stay, Mala Badal nominated the petitioner as Pradhan in his place under rule 46-A of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Subsequently, the stay order was vacated by the High Court. The question that arose before the Sub-Divisional Officer was whether the petitioner who had been nominated by Mata Badal could function as the Pradhan after the vacation of the stay order. 3. The petitioner bad been nominated under rule 46-A which applies in a case where Pradhan or Up-Pradhan because of their absence could not function. Id such a contingency, he may nominate in wring a member of the Gaon Pam. hay at and such member shall during such absence exercise all the powers and pet form all duties of the Pradhan conferred or assigned by or under the Act. The power to nominate, therefore, could last only so long as the Pradhan is absent from the scene. 4. In the instant case, the election of the Pradhan had been set aside and the stay order granted in his favour had been vacated. He is no longer entitled to function. Ashe himself is not entitled to function, the nomination of the petitioner made by him in exercise of the powers under rule 46 A has come to an end. The petitioner cannot claim for the term longer in point of time than that which Mata Badal himself had. The petitioner, therefore, has no locus standi to continue in office. 5. Counsel, however, challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under rule 46-B appointing respondent no. 5 as the Pradhan. He urged that power conferred by rule 46 B can be exercised only in a case where the Pradhan and the Up-Pradban of a Gaon Sabba is suspended. The petitioner, therefore, has no locus standi to continue in office. 5. Counsel, however, challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under rule 46-B appointing respondent no. 5 as the Pradhan. He urged that power conferred by rule 46 B can be exercised only in a case where the Pradhan and the Up-Pradban of a Gaon Sabba is suspended. The contention was that as the present was Dot a case in which either of the two had been suspended Rule 46-B could not be taken help of for nominating respondent no. 5. Be that as it may, we are mainly concerned with the right of the petitioner to continue in office. We have already held above that he was nominated by Mata Badal. After the vacation of the stay order made in favour of Mata Badal, the nomination made by Mata Badal no longer exists. We are not, therefore, required to adjudicate upon the validity of the order of the bub-Divisional Magistrate passed under rule 46-B. 6. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.