CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is similar to Writ Petitions 15581 and 15582 of 1987. The petitioner is a member of Jogihalli Mandal panchayat. He was one of the contesting candidate for the office of Pradhan, but not successful. He has challenged in this writ petition the election of second respondent Ramegowda as Pradhan and of Sri Eswaraiah-third respondent as Upapradhan. The petitioner also questions the nomination of respondent 4 and 5 as members of the Mandal Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Karnataka zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya panchayats Act, 1983. Nomination of respondents 4 and 5 is challenged on the ground that Zilla Parishad Adhyaksha had no power to make nomination and therefore the nominations being invalid their participation at the election affecting the result of the election held for the office of pradhan and Upa-pradhan is also vitiated. ( 2 ) IN the election held by the sixth respondent for the office of Pradhan the second respondent obtained 16 votes including those of the nominated members while the other candidate petitioner obtained fourteen votes, as a result of which, the second respondent was declared elected. If the votes of the nominated members are not to be reckoned on account of the illegality of the nominations, as held by this Court in Writ appeals 1942 of 1987 and connected matters, then they would have secured equal number of votes, which is to be resolved by the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhana and Upapradhana) rules, 1987, i. e. , by taking lot. Therefore, declaration of second respondent as pradhana is liable to be struck down in annexure-B by the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is directed to make a fresh declaration by resorting to lot. ( 3 ) THE above direction is issued despite the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent. He contended that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of laches and no relief should be granted to the petitioner. He also contended that section 55 of the Act saves the election of Pradhana notwithstanding the fact respondents 4 and 5 participated in the election. He contended that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of laches and no relief should be granted to the petitioner. He also contended that section 55 of the Act saves the election of Pradhana notwithstanding the fact respondents 4 and 5 participated in the election. The thrust of the argument is that Section 55 being a provision intended to validate the acts of Mandal Panchayat despite defect in election or appointment of members, the election of the Pradhana must be considered and construed as an act of Mandal Panchayat and therefore, deemed to have been saved by Section 55 of the Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 55 of the Act reads as follows :"validity of proceedings.- (1) No disqualification of or defect in the ction or appointment of any person acting as members, or as the Pradhana or member of a committee of a Mandal panchayat appointed under this Act shall be deemed to vitiate any act or proceedings of the Mandal Panchayat or any such committee, as the case may be, in which such person has taken part whenever the majority who were parties to such act or proceedings were entitled to act. (2) No resolution of a Mandal Pan- chayat or of any committee of a Mandal panchayat constituted under this Act shall be deemed invalid on account of any irregularity in the service of notice upon any members provided that the proceedings of the Mandal Panchayat or Committees were not prejudicially affected by such irregularity. (3) Until the contrary is proved, every meeting of a Mandal Panchayat or of a committee of a Mandal Pan- chayat constituted under this Act in respect of proceedings whereof a minute has been made and signed in accordance with this Act, shall be deemed to have been duly convened and held and all the members of the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly qualified, and where the proceed- ings are the proceedings of a committee such committee shall be deemed to have had the power to deal with matters referred to in the minute. (4) During any vacancy in a Mandal panchayat or committee of a Mandal panchayat, the continuing members may act as if no vacancy had occurred. (4) During any vacancy in a Mandal panchayat or committee of a Mandal panchayat, the continuing members may act as if no vacancy had occurred. " the difficulty in accepting the argument is this ; what is saved, having regard to the language of Section 55 of the Act, is the proceedings or act of the Mandal panchayat in which members whose election was defective or whose appointment was defective or illegal having participated. But election of Pradhana and Upapradhana is not an act or proceeding of the Mandal Panchayat. It is the act of individual members of the panchayat in electing a person to the offices of Pradhana and Upapradhana. It is a proceeding of the Mandal Panchayat only for the purpose of election and it is not presided over by any person to be construed as a proceeding of the Mandal panchayat. It is presided over by the election Officer or the Prescribed Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner for that purpose Therefore, the first meeting of the panchayat to elect Pradhana and Upapradhana should stand outside the proceedings referred to in Section 55 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has given up his relief against the third respondent, the person declared elected to the office of upapradhana. It is seen from Annexure-B that there was contest for the office of upapradhana also. While sixteen persons including to nominated members voted in favour of the third respondent all the members soon thereafter left the hall without casting any vote in favour of the other candidate namely V. Ramesh. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact the relief against him is given up having regard to sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhana and Upapradhana) rules 1987, if the votes of the nominated members are to be ignored, then Upa- pradhana also did not secure majority of the votes as required by sub-rule 5 of rule 4 of the said Rules. Therefore, his election also must be declared to be illegal and contrary to law. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING the decision in Writ appeal 1942 of 1987 and connected mat- ters, Annexure-A notification nominating respondents 4 and 5 also must be struck down. Therefore, his election also must be declared to be illegal and contrary to law. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING the decision in Writ appeal 1942 of 1987 and connected mat- ters, Annexure-A notification nominating respondents 4 and 5 also must be struck down. ( 7 ) IN the result, rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute with a direction to the sixth respondent-Election officer to make fresh declarations in the light of the observations made in this order for the office of Pradhana by taking lots and in so far as it relates to the office of Upapradhana he has to hold fresh elections and follow the procedure prescribed in sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 4 of the rules. Order accordingly. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .