ORDER It appears that before any meeting for considering the resolution for no confidence against the Prodhan was held, the Prodhan had voluntarily resigned and the post for Prodhan became vacant. It is contended by the petitioner that in such circumstances the Prodhan after tendering resignation cannot again seek election for being elected as Prodhan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the Prodhan is allowed to contest for the post of Prodhan despite his voluntary resignation, he may successfully defeat the purpose of bringing a resolution of no confidence against him. Unfortunately, there is no provision in the Act that Prodhan after relinquishing the post cannot seek election for the said post. It may also be noted here that there is no provision III the Act that if the Prodhan is removed from the office by a no confidence resolution he will be precluded from contesting the election as Prodhan either for the rest of the tenure or any specified period. In the absence of any such provision, the Prodhan may again seek election for being elected as a Prodhan. If after removal, a Prodhan can seek election, it does not stand to reason that he cannot seek election if before any no confidence motion is passed against him, he has resigned voluntarily and contesting the election. So long the right to seek election is not taken away by making any provision to that effect either expressly or by necessary implication, ethical reasons cannot be pressed for debarring the Prodhan to seek election for being elected as Prodhan. So long the Prodhan enjoys confidence of the majority, he may successfully contest such election whenever any vacancy is caused. It, however, appears to me that if the election of the Prodhan now takes place the members nominated in the Gram Panchayat under s. 210 of the Panchayat Act will participate in such election. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nomination of such members under s. 210 is already a subject-matter of challenge in another writ petition pending before this Court. Accordingly, they should be restrained from participating in the election of Prodhan until the question of validity of their nomination is finally decided in the writ proceeding. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nomination of such members under s. 210 is already a subject-matter of challenge in another writ petition pending before this Court. Accordingly, they should be restrained from participating in the election of Prodhan until the question of validity of their nomination is finally decided in the writ proceeding. In my view, so long the said members are not restrained by any interim order passed in the said writ proceeding or so long their nomination as members of Gram Panchayat is annulled by this Court in the said writ proceeding it will not be proper to restrain such nominees from participating as member of the Gram Panchayat in the election of Pradhan. But it is made clear that the validity of the election of Prodhan will ultimately abide by the decision to be made in the pending proceeding where the nomination of such members is under challenge. If it is held in the said pending proceeding that the said member or anyone of them had not been validly nominated, the result of the election of the Prodhan will have to be reviewed on the basis of the decision to be made in such writ proceeding. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.