Judgment 1. In this writ application filed under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for quashing Annexure-1 dated 4th Feb. 1984 under which the Sub-divisional Officer, Madhepura as Returning Officer (respondent No. 3) has declared respondent No. 6 Ram Krishna Yadav as Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti, Kumarkhand, in the district of Madhepura. 2. The petitioner was the Up-Pramukh of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti and one Matukdhari Mandal was the Pramukh of the said Samiti. The said Matukdhari Mandal subsequently became a member of the Zila Parishad, Madhepura, under the provisions of S.36 of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 (Bihar Act VI of 1962) (hereinafter called the Act), and thereafter he was elected as Chairman of Zila Parishad in Sept. 1982. The said Matukdhari Mandal died on 29th July, 1983. Accordingly, under the provision of sub-sec: (3)(d) of S.6 one Kamla Prasad Chaudhary was nominated as a member of the said Samiti from the category of social workers. He also died in the year 1983, and, accordingly, the vacancy was filled up by nomination of Ram Krishna Yadav (respondent No. 8) as a member of the aforesaid Samiti in place of the vacancy created on the death of Kamla Prasad Chaudhary. A copy of the notification dated 11-1-1984 under which respondent No. 6 was nominated as a member has been annexed as Annexure-2. 3. It appears that for election of the Pramukh of Kumarkhand Panchayat Samiti a notice dated 24-1-1984 was sent by respondent No. 3, who was the Returning Officer, to the petitioner intimating that a meeting for the election of the Pramukh of Kumarkhand Panchayat Samiti would be held on 4th Feb. 1984, at 10 a.m. True copies of the notice and the programme have been made Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. In pursuance of the said Annexures 3 and 4, respondent No. 6 who secured the maximum votes was declared elected as Pramukh under Annexure-1 aforesaid. 4. According to the petitioner, five candidates submitted their nomination paper, but two of them withdrew their candidature, and only three persons contested the election, namely, the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and one Chandra Shekhar Jha. The petitioner asserts in writ application that respondent No 6 was an associate member and, therefore, not entitled to contest the election of the Pramukh under S.6 of the Act. 5. The petitioner asserts in writ application that respondent No 6 was an associate member and, therefore, not entitled to contest the election of the Pramukh under S.6 of the Act. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent No. 1), which was sworn by an Assistant of the Returning Officers office, who was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that there was no irregularity in the holding of the election of the Pramukh. It has been stated therein that the petitioner did not file any objection to the nomination filed by the candidates; rather he participated and fought for the election. The election was held, according to the scheduled programme and respondent No. 6, who was a nominated member and not an associate member, was entitled to contest the election. 6. Mr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing in support of this writ application raised two points. The first point when was canvassed at length by him was that respondent No. 6 being nominated as an associate member could not in law contest the election of the Pramukh. I may point out here that Mr. Narayan Singh learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and Mr. Mani Lal learned Standing Counsel IV appearing for the State and the State officials rightly pointed out that in para 8 of the writ application, the factual position has been correctly stated, namely, that respondent No. 6 was nominated as Member of the Kumarkhand Panchayat Samiti. This statement was fully corroborated by Annexure-2 itself, which has stated in clear terms that respondent No. 6 was nominated as Member of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti. loth of them contended that the supplementary affidavit which has been filed during the course of arguments on 6th Aug. 1984 and which annexes the certified copy of the list of the Members and associate Members of the Kumarkhand Panchayat Samiti showing respondent No. 6 against serial No. 23 as associate Member is wrong. This submission, in my opinion, is well founded in view of the assertion made in para 8 of the writ application which has been supported by Annexure-2. Thus it cannot be denied that respondent No. 6 was nominated as a member in the vacancy created on the death of Kamala Prasad Chaudhary from the category of social workers. This submission, in my opinion, is well founded in view of the assertion made in para 8 of the writ application which has been supported by Annexure-2. Thus it cannot be denied that respondent No. 6 was nominated as a member in the vacancy created on the death of Kamala Prasad Chaudhary from the category of social workers. If that be so then the contention that respondent No. 6 could not have contested the election of the Pramukh is unfounded and has no substance. 7. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to S.6 of the Act. He pointed out that the heading of S.6 begins with the words "Associate Members of the Panchayat Samiti", and thereafter different sub-sections have been mentioned. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, ail these persons, who come within the provisions of S.6 and those sub-sections, win be deemed to be associate members, who can only take part in the proceeding of any meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, but shall not be entitled to be elected as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or Chairman. It appears that originally when the Act came into force, composition of Panchayat Samiti was to be done under S.5, which consisted only of the members mentioned in different sub-sections of that Section. S.6, as originally stood had only three sub-sections, which included only associate members. Thereafter from time to time there have been amendments and S.6 now consists of five sub-sections. Sub-secs.(1), (4) and (5) speak of associate members and sub-secs.(2) and (3) speak of members. Though S.6 was widely amended, which now includes both members and associate members, the heading of that Section, it appears, was carried from the original unamended Act. As the Section itself is very clear, interpretation of a clear provision cannot be controlled by the heading of the said Section. If the interpretation put by learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the provisions of sub-secs.(2) and (3), which speak of members, would be redundant and effect merely has to be given to sub-secs.(1), (4) and (5). Sub-sec.(1) of S.6 is a provision, which says that the Chairman of the Municipality or the Vice-President of the Notified Area Committee shall be associate member, and, if any municipality has been superseded, then the Special Officer shall be the Associate Member in place of the Chairman. Sub-sec.(1) of S.6 is a provision, which says that the Chairman of the Municipality or the Vice-President of the Notified Area Committee shall be associate member, and, if any municipality has been superseded, then the Special Officer shall be the Associate Member in place of the Chairman. Sub-sec.(2) says that three persons mentioned in Clauses (Ka), (Kha) and (Ga) of that sub-section should be the representatives from a Co-operative Society having their registered office in the Prakhand, except the Central Co-operative Bank, and they will be the Members of the Panchayat Samiti, namely, under Clause (Ka) one representative duly elected from amongst the representatives of the Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Cane-growers Co-operative Society, Large Scale Agricultural Multipurpose Co-operative Society and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operatice Society; under clause (Kha) one duly elected representative by the Secretaries out of the Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Cane-growers Co-operative Society, Large Scale Multipurpose Cooperative Society and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society; and under Cl.(Ga) if there be any registered Vyapar Mandal constituted under the law in force regarding Co-operative Society, one duly elected representative from its managing committee and if there be no Vyapar Mandal, then from the Co-operative Society mentioned in clause (Ka) one more person will be elected by the representatives of those Societies. Sub-sec.(3) (Ka) speaks of nomination of one member by the State Government and out of the members of the general body of the Prakhand Panchayat Parishad. Sub-sec.(3)(Ka) speaks that five such members, who have interest in the development work, shall be nominated by the State Government. Sub-sec.(4) speaks of nomination of one associate member out of the members of the Managing Committee of a Central Bank constituted under the law then in force with regard to Co-operative Societies, whose working area is in the Prakhand or the Block. Sub-sec.(4) speaks of nomination of one associate member out of the members of the Managing Committee of a Central Bank constituted under the law then in force with regard to Co-operative Societies, whose working area is in the Prakhand or the Block. Then comes sub-sec.(5) which states that every such associate member shall have a right to attend and take part in the proceedings of any meeting of the Panchayat Samiti of which he is such member or of any standing committee thereof but shall not be entitled to vote or to be elected as a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh or Chairman of any standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti; provided, that an associate member may take part and exercise his vote in any election or co-option under sub-sec.(1) of S.5 or in any meeting of the Panchayat Samiti or a standing committee thereof if he also represents any other interest which entitles him to participate and vote in any of the aforementioned elections or co-options or meetings. 8. Thus sub-sec.(5) of S.6 bars only the associate members to contest the election of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and it does not debar the members, who are elected or represented under sub-secs.(2) and (3) of S.6. It appears, therefore, that the heading of the Section upon which great stress was given by learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot help him in interpreting the clear provision of sub-section (5). There is no ambiguity in that Section, as already stated above. The amended S.6, as it stands now, makes provision both for nomination and election of the associate members and members. Thus the first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner has no substance and it is rejected. 9. It was next contended that the proviso to R.43 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act makes provision for filling up casual vacancy in the office of the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh in a meeting to be held within thirty days of the occurrence thereof. Learned Counsel relying upon this proviso contended that as this casual vacancy for the post of Pramukh was filled up much beyond thirty days of such vacancy, the election for filling up such casual vacancy of the Pramukh was void and illegal. S.8 of the Act is the provision for election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and filling up of vacancies. S.8 of the Act is the provision for election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and filling up of vacancies. It was contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that though S.8 speaks of filling up of the vacancies including the casual vacancies in the prescribed manner, the proviso to R.43, which mentions thirty days for filling up a casual vacancy, is not a mandatory provision but a directory provision. According to learned Counsel for the respondents, in the facts and circumstances, the limitation provided in the proviso is merely a directory provision and therefore, election, if any, held beyond thirty days of the casual vacancy would not render such election void. Learned Counsel contended that S.8 of the Act does not say anywhere that if the meeting for filling up the casual vacancy is not held within thirty days of the occurrence thereof, then such filling up of the post would be invalid and inoperative. Sub-sec.(2) of S.8 merely states that filling up of casual vacancy of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, whose duration was for three years, would be filled up in the prescribed manner and he shall hold office for the residue of the term of his predecessor. It is under this provision that the proviso to R.43 has been made. As neither R.43 nor S.8 speaks about the consequences of not filling up of the vacancy within thirty days of the occurrence thereof, it is difficult to hold that such filling up of vacancy or holding meeting thereof for filling up such vacancy after thirty days would be illegal, and invalid. In my opinion, the provision of the proviso, wherein within thirty days of the occurrence thereof has been mentioned, is merely a directory provision, and, if such meeting has not been held within thirty days, then it would at the most amount to an irregularity. That apart, the petitioner who himself filed his nomination for the election of Pramukh and contested the same is not permitted to raise this point and challenge such irregularity. The petitioner having taken part as aforesaid, he has acquiesced to any irregularity committed by the authority concerned in the election of the Pramukh for filling up the casual vacancy. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Thus this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner also fails. 10. The petitioner having taken part as aforesaid, he has acquiesced to any irregularity committed by the authority concerned in the election of the Pramukh for filling up the casual vacancy. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Thus this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner also fails. 10. In the result, there is no merit in the application and it is, accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.