ORDER M.L. Bhat, J. - These two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petitions Nos. 20867 of 1988 and 9696 of 1989 filed by the petitioner are being decided by one judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 20867 of 1989, the petitioner seeks relief of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the election held on 9-10-1988 and its result as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further, a writ of mandamus is prayed to be issued commanding the respondents, their agents and employees not to interfere with the petitioner in his functioning as Pradhan of Gaon Basera, district Muzaffarnagar. In Writ Petition No. 9696 of 1989 besides the relief of mandamus, relief of certiorari is also claimed for quashing the letter dated 2-5-89 written by Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari to Khand Vikash Adhikari, Kairana, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. By this letter the charge of the Pradhan was required to be handedover to the Up Pradhan, respondent No. 4 to the writ petition. Fate of Writ Petition No. 9696 of 1989 would depend upon the success or failure of writ petition No. 20867 of 1988. Therefore, the two writ petitions are decided together. 3. To appreciate the dispute raised in the writ petitions appropriately it is necessary to advert to the facts as set in the pleading of the parties. Gaon Sabha Basera consists of the following villages 1. Basera Abad 2. Basera Ghair Abad 3. Pather 4. Mukundpur. This Gaon Sabha is said to have been constituted on 6-7-88 after following the election process which was notified earlier. The petitioner is said to have secured 629 votes while his rival is said to have secured only 468 votes. The petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha by the Returning Officer. There are 12 members of the Gaon Sabha including one lady member who was co-opted directly by the majority of the members of the Gaon Sabha. In a meeting of the executive committee of the Gaon Sabha held on 16-8-88 the petitioner was appointed Pradhan of the executive and one Sari Isam Singh was elected as Up-Pradhan of the executive. The petitioner, thereafter, was co-opted as a member. block development committee who elect Block Pramukh of the Development Block. On 6-10-88 through a publiicity by drum, it was known that the election of the Gram Panchayat Basera will again be held. The petitioner, thereafter, was co-opted as a member. block development committee who elect Block Pramukh of the Development Block. On 6-10-88 through a publiicity by drum, it was known that the election of the Gram Panchayat Basera will again be held. The petitioner is said to have lodged a protest before respondent No. 2 against the proposed election which according to the petitioner was being held in violation of law. In spite of the protes made by the petitioner the election was held on9-10-1988. The election could not be held because the elected body which was constituted on 6-7-88 was to hold office for five years under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter called the Act. 4. It is staved by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to hold fresh election of the office bearers and members of Gram Panchayat Basera after the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the said Panchayat on 5-7-88, result whereof was declared on 6-7-88. After the election was over, respondent No. 3 was declared as Pradhan of Gaon, Sabha Basera on 9-10-88. Copy of which is filed as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has stated that entire proceedings of the election held on 9-10-88 are null and void because the same is contrary to the provision of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner's election held on 5-7-88 was final. The respondents could not cold a fresh election before five years' term of the petitioner expired. On the basis of the election dated 9-10-88, respondent No. 3 is said to he threating to oust the petitioner from the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchavat Basera. The petitioner submits that he still holds the office in pursuance of a valid election. On the basis of the aforesaid facts relief of certiorari and mandamus is claimed by the petitioner. By an interim order dated 31-10-88 issued by this Court, respondent No. 3 was directed not to function as Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Basera, district Muzaffarnagar. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 it is stated that in terms of Government Notification dated 23-8-88, the Gram Sabha, Basera was bifurcated. By an interim order dated 31-10-88 issued by this Court, respondent No. 3 was directed not to function as Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Basera, district Muzaffarnagar. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 it is stated that in terms of Government Notification dated 23-8-88, the Gram Sabha, Basera was bifurcated. Two Gaon Sabhas were brought in existence, one consisting of villages Basera Abad and Basera Ghair Abad, the other consisting of villages Pather and Mukundpur, and four more Gaon Sabhas from out of Kairana Dehat were carved out. The Director of Panchayat Raj by his letter dated 13-9-88 called upon respondent No. 1 to take preliminary steps immediately and hold elections in the newly constituted Gaon Sabhas and their Panchayats. After the publication of the notification for constitution of six Gaon Sabhas, there had also been a publication at Tahsil Head Quarters of Tahsil Kairana and at the officer of District Panchayat Officer Muzaffarnagar notifying creation of six more Gaon Sabhas. Out of this creation, the two Gaon Sabhas, namely Gaon Sabha Basera Abad and Basera Ghair Abad and Gaon Sabha of Pather and Mukundpur are relevant for the purposes of this writ petition. 6. On 3-10-88 the Joint Director Elections, Lucknow is said to have addressed a Radiogram to respondent No. I to hold an election of the newly carved out Gaon Sabhas as per the election schedule already submitted. For election to the Basera Gaon Sabha, Block Development Officer. Block Kairana was appointed as Returning Officer. The petitioner is also said to have participated in this election. Polling had taken place in presence of the petitioner and the result of the said election was declared on 10-10-88 by the Returning Officer. The petitioner is said to have secured 356 votes and respondent No. 3 secured 359 votes. Respondent No. 3 was declared as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha on the basis of number of votes polled by him. The documents indicating steps taken during the election process are placed on the record. The woman member remains to be coopted and election of Up-Pradhan could not be held due to an interim stay received through the petitioner from this Court. The petitioner is said to have concealed the relevant facts and has obtained interim stay from the Court whereby the functioning of the elected Gaon Sabha has been stalled. The woman member remains to be coopted and election of Up-Pradhan could not be held due to an interim stay received through the petitioner from this Court. The petitioner is said to have concealed the relevant facts and has obtained interim stay from the Court whereby the functioning of the elected Gaon Sabha has been stalled. After the declaration of the election result the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an election petition before the Prescribed Authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer under S. 12C(1) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. In reply to various paras it is stated that the Gaon Sabha, for villages Pather and Mukundpur, is an independent and new Gaon Sabha. In the same manner Gaon Sabha, for village Basera Abad and Basera Ghair Abad, is a separate entity. The elections held on 5-7-88, for the old Gaon Sabha comprising of four villages, is not denied. The petitioner is said to have participated in the election of the newly created Gaon Sabha. His contention that he had signed blank paper which was later used by the authorities, is said to be concoction and afterthought. It is stated that powers exercisable by the State Government under S. 3 of the Act have been delegated to the Director of Panchayats under the provisions of the Act. The State Government is said to be within its right to establish, a new Gaon Sabha. The petitioner is said to have concealed the facts which were specifically known to him. 8. The petitioner has filed two rejoinder-affidavits and the respondent No. 3 also has filed a Supplementary - Counter-affidavit which will be discussed a little later. The petitioner appears to have filed an application for amendment of the writ petition in December, 1988. The application for amendment supported by the affidavit is prayed to be treated as part of the writ petition and it was actually treated as such and the petitioner was allowed to argue the case on the basis of the pleas raised in the application for amendment of the writ petition. In the petitioner's opinion there is some overlapping or lacunae in the language of S. 12G, and S. 12(2) of the Act. In the petitioner's opinion there is some overlapping or lacunae in the language of S. 12G, and S. 12(2) of the Act. The petitioner submits that the State Government has no power to constitute a Gram Panchayat and nor can reconstitution as contemplated by S. 12G of the Act be done by the State Government. The petitioner's conter Jon is that Gaon Sabha may be reconstituted ' it Gram Panhayat, elected once, has to remain in force for five years and it will govern the reconstituted Gram Sabha for the said term. The reconstitution of the gram Panchayat is said to be illegal. The U.P. State is also prayed to be arragd as party. The provis of sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Act and S. 12G of the Act so far as they provide a constitution of Gaon Sabha by the State, are ultravires of the Act and the Constitution It is also stated that under the A: on exclusion of avillage from a particular Gion Sabha, no fresh election in respect of non-excluded village is to take place and the existing Gaon Panchayat shall continue to function the non-excluded village for the full term. The election for Gram Panchayat could be held only for newly constituted Gaon Sabna and not for the original Gaon Sabha from which the village is excluded. Villages of original Gaon Sabha is termed as non-excluded villages. 9. In the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has refuted the facts set up by respondent No. 2 and has reiterated the assertion made by him in the writ petition. Supplementary rejoinder-affidavit also does not mention any other point which was not there in the pleadings. 10. Learned counsel for the parties were heard in the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel also was heard. Some facts which are admitted in the pleadings of the parties are as under : 1. That there was an old Gaon Sabha known as Basera Gaon Sabha comprising of four villages namely, Basera Abad, Basera Ghair Abad, Pather and Mukhundpur. 2. For the said Gaon Sabha the elections of the Gram Panchayat and its executive were held on 5-7-88. Result of the said election was declared on 6-7-88 in which the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and the said Gaon Sabha had come into being and started functioning. A lady member also was co-opted in the executive. For the said Gaon Sabha the elections of the Gram Panchayat and its executive were held on 5-7-88. Result of the said election was declared on 6-7-88 in which the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and the said Gaon Sabha had come into being and started functioning. A lady member also was co-opted in the executive. In all 22 members were elected for Gram Panchayat and the petitioner was elected as Pradhan. 3. The Gaon Sabha was bifurcated after preparation of scheme of carving out six Gaon Sabha in Kairana Tahasil on 23-8-88. As a result of this bifurcation, apart from four other Gaon Sabhas, Basera Gaon Sabha was bifurcated into two Gaon Sabhas namely Gaon Sabha Basera Abad and Basera Ghair Abad. The new Gaon was for the villages Pather and Mukundpur (The petitioner terms Pather and Mukundpur villages as excluded villages and Basera-Abad and Basera Ghair as non-excluded villages). A fresh election for newly constituted Gaon Sabha, to elect its executive was held on 9-10-88 in pursuance of an elected schedule which was duly publicised and election was held on 9-10-88. The result of the said election was declared on 10-10-88. 4. The petitioner had also taken part in the said election. Respondent No. 3 was elected and the petitioner was defeated for the post of Pradhan. 11. Mr. Zaidi has submitted that election held on 5-7-88 cannot be nullified before five years' term. He has referred to certain provisions of the Act. A perusal of these provisions reveals that under S. 3 of the Act the State Government is empowered to establish a Gaon Sabha for a village or group of villages by notification in the official Gazette. The State Government also is empowered to declare the name and territorial jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha in the notification mentioned in sub-section (1) of S. 3. It can include either on its own motion or on the request of a Gaon Sabha or on the request of the residents of any village any area or exclude any area from the area of the Gaon Sabha and make such incidental, and consequential orders as may be necessary for effecting the changes. It can include either on its own motion or on the request of a Gaon Sabha or on the request of the residents of any village any area or exclude any area from the area of the Gaon Sabha and make such incidental, and consequential orders as may be necessary for effecting the changes. If any area is included in the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha such area shall thereby become subject to all notification, rules, regulations, bye-laws and orders made under this or any other enactment in force in the area within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Gaon Sabha. Under S. 96-A the State Government can delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any Officer or Authority subordinate to it subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose. 12. Under S. 4 of the Act every Gaon Sabha shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. S. 4 gives autonomous status to the Gaon Sabha. Under S. SA Gaon Sabha is to consist of adults ordinarily residing within the area for which it is established. However, member who is not citizen of India and is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court, is disqualified to be a member of the Gaon Sabha. Under S. 12 of the Act executive of the Gaon Sabha is to be constituted which shall be called Gaon Panchayat and subject to provisions of S. 12G the terms of every Gaon Panchayat shall be five years or if the State Government so declares by notification in the official Gazette such longer term not exceeding 12 years as it may deem fit. However, S. 12G, which is exception to S. 12, provides as follows : "12G. General Election :- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may (a) at any time order reconstitution of Gaon Panchayat in the whole State or in any specific area thereof and thereupon the term of such Gaon Panchayats shall be deemed to have expired any fresh election, nominations and appointments may take place accordingly; and (b) when there is change in the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat, order such changes in the constitution of the Nyaya Panchayat as it considers necessary in view of the change in the jurisdiction." 13. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions of law contained in S. 12G of the Act, which starts from non obstante clause, it transpires that on the order of reconstitution of Gaon Panchayat in wholeof the State or in any specific area thereof, the term of such Gaon Panchayat shall be deemed to have expired and a fresh election, nomination and appointments. may take place accordingly and where there is change in the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat, the Government may order such change in the constitution of the Nyaya Panchayat as it considers necessary in view of the change in the jurisdiction. 14. Mr. Zaidi has seen some legislative omissions in the provision of law as contained in S. 12(2) and S. 12G of the Act. The legislative omissions noticed by Mr. Zaidi in the two provisions of the Act are only imaginary and not real. Both provisions of the law have to operate in different situations and the provisions contained in S. 12G is an exception to S. 12(2) of the Act. 15. There is no difficulty of any kind in reconciling the provisions of law, contained in S. 12(2) and S. 12G of the Act. S. 12(2) is a general provision and if there is no reconstitution of the Gaon Panchayat for any area,the Gaon Panchayat is to continue for five years or for 12 years if the Government makes a notification in this behalf. But if there is reconstitution of the Gaon Panchayat in the whole State or in any specific area. S. 12G will come into play. The two provisions of the same statute do not over lap each other nor would it be a case where one provision is rendered redundant by another provision of the same statute. The areas of the operation of the two provisions of the sarhe statute are clearly discernible. It seems that legislature has taken care of the eventuality when a Gaon Panchayat is needed to be reconstituted for a specific area by including or excluding a particular area from the Gaon Sabha. However, for inclusion or exclusion of a particular area. the scheme of the At has to be made workable. It seems that legislature has taken care of the eventuality when a Gaon Panchayat is needed to be reconstituted for a specific area by including or excluding a particular area from the Gaon Sabha. However, for inclusion or exclusion of a particular area. the scheme of the At has to be made workable. If S. 12G was not engrafted in the Act that would have been a legislative lapse, but by incorporating S. 12G of the Act a comprehensive scheme is made for working of the Gaon Panchayat for a different area which may be constituted from time to time. It is not possible to hold that there is any conflict between S. 12(2) land S. 12G of the Act. The contention of Mr. Zaidi in this regard is therefore, to be overruled. 16. Under S. 110 of the Act the State Government is empowered to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rule 3 provides for establishment of Sabhas. A list of Sabhas constituted and established thereunder in each Tahsil shall be published at the Tahsil Headquarters and at the office of District Panchavat Officer. Rule 3A, is with regard to changes in the jurisdiction of Sabhas. It gives a procedure as to how such changes are to be effected. Rule 3AA provides division of funds if a part of area of Gaon Sabha established under the Act is transferred to another Gaon Sabha and so on. Rule 3 AAA deals with the situation where Gaon Sabha is included in a municipality, cantonment, notified area or town area, the Gaon Sabha shall cease and its assets and liabilities shall be transferred to the local body in which such area is included. 17. Rule 3D (1-A) provides that the existing members of Gaon Panchayat even though in excess of the number prescribed, shall continue to be members of the Gaon Panchayat concerned till the expiry of the term of that Gaon Panchayat. This sub-rule is exception to Rule 3D(1). Rule 3D(i) prescribes the number of members allotted to each Gaon Panchayat in addition to the Pradhan. Where the population of Gaon Sabha does not exceed five hundreds the number of members allotted to the Gaon Sabha are seven. This sub-rule is exception to Rule 3D(1). Rule 3D(i) prescribes the number of members allotted to each Gaon Panchayat in addition to the Pradhan. Where the population of Gaon Sabha does not exceed five hundreds the number of members allotted to the Gaon Sabha are seven. Where population of the Gaon Sabha exceeds 500 hundreds but does not exceed 1000, the number of members allotted to such Gaon Sabha is nine and so on and so forth. Rule 3D(1A) shows that for any reason if existing members of the Gaon Panchayat are in excess of the number prescribed they shall continue to be members of the Gaon Panchayat concerned till the expiry of the term of the Panchayat. It makes Rule 3D directory and not mandatory. The number in addition to the members which are to be allotted to each Gaon Sabhas on the basis of its population may exceed and if there is any excess that excess will be allowed to continue till the full terms is expired. This is in short the import of the said Rule. It does not postulate that members of a Gaon Panchayat shall continue even after bifurcation of Gaon Sabha or reconstitution of the areas of the Gaon Sabha. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that clause (2C) of Rule 3B authorises the District Magistrate, subject to the directions issued from the Director of Panchayats, to re-determine the circles of Nyaya Panchayats and amend the list prepared under Rule 3B which is to be published. If any area is included in or excluded from the circle of a Nyaya Panchayat the District Magistrate can pass suitable orders subject to the directions of of the Director of Panchayats regarding the total number of panches and formation of benches of Nyaya Panchayat. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to S. 11-B(2) of the Act which says that the term of the Pradhan shall commence from the date of the constitution of the Gaon Panchayat or from the date of his being elected or nominated, whichever is later, and unless otherwise under the provisions of this Act. shall expire with the term of the Gaon Panchayat. This section also makes it possible to hold that the term of the Pradhan shall commence and expire in normal course, unless otherwise provided under the provisions of the Act. shall expire with the term of the Gaon Panchayat. This section also makes it possible to hold that the term of the Pradhan shall commence and expire in normal course, unless otherwise provided under the provisions of the Act. This provision also takes note of S. 12G. 20. Under S. 12G, after the reconstitution of Gaon Panchayat in the whole State or in any specific area, the term of the Gaon Panchayat is deemed to have expired and fresh election is to take place. The deeming provision contained in S. 12G in respect of expiry of the term of Gaon Panchayat before expiry of statutory period of five years makes it possible for a constituted Gaon Panchayat to hold fresh election. The deeming provision is to come into play on happening of certain contingency which could not be foreseen when the Gaon Panchayat was constituted originally. If no contingency takes place the Gaon Panchayat may last for five years but if there is reconstitution of Panchayat by adjustment or areas, the areas excluded from the original Panchayat which are to form areas of new Panchayat, can have new election and the original Gaon Panchayat for the whole area would cease to be operative for such areas which are excluded from the area of the original Gaon Panchayat. Therefore, S. 12 cannot be held to be bad or ultra vires of the constitution as contended by Mr. Zaidi. 21. Rule 3D(IA) also will not help Mr. Zaidi because that Rule as already stated has different connotation and its import has to be judged in the context of Rule 3D(I). 22. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on an authority in Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1968 SC 1344 . The Supreme Court was considering certain provisions of the Act and it has observed that : "Provisions of Sections 3 and 8 do not involve excessive delegation of legislative functions to State Government. They are supported by adequate safeguard's or guide. The underlying policy and the objective of the legislation is clearly set out and the details of the duties of the Kshettra Samitis are indicated. It has, however, been left to the State Government to determine what the Khands should be and how many Kshetra Samitis should be constituted in each district. They are supported by adequate safeguard's or guide. The underlying policy and the objective of the legislation is clearly set out and the details of the duties of the Kshettra Samitis are indicated. It has, however, been left to the State Government to determine what the Khands should be and how many Kshetra Samitis should be constituted in each district. This is not a subject for detailed legislation because it is eminently a matter which can be left to the determination of the Executive which is to act in conformity with the wishes of the local people,the political exigency of the situation and the requirements of administrative control. The Act has not erred by conceding unfettered or uncanalised power to the State Government. On the other hand it has itself spoken on the relevant subject in full detail so as to outline its own will which alone the Executive is supposed to implement." 23. The petitioner is said to have taken part in the election held on 10-10-88 for the post of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. He had secured 356 votes and his rival had secured 359 votes. This fact has conveniently been omitted by the petitioner in his writ petition. 24. After having taken part in the election and after having contested the election, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that no election could be held for the newly created Gaon Sabha. He has tried to take benefit from the election notification which is now challenged by him after he was declared unsuccessful in the said election. The petitioner cannot blow hot and cold. 25. Asa result of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition No. 20867 of 1988 fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court is also vacated. Writ Petition No. 9696 of 1989 shall also fail because the petitioner has failed in the main writ petition. This writ petition was only consequential writ petition and it could be allowed only if the petitioner would succeed in writ petition No. 20867 of 1988. Since the petitioner has failed in the said writ petition, therefore, the follow up action pursued by the petitioner will also lapse. The result is that letter dated 2-5-89 contained in Annexure-4 in the said writ petition cannot be said to be bad. 26. Since the petitioner has failed in the said writ petition, therefore, the follow up action pursued by the petitioner will also lapse. The result is that letter dated 2-5-89 contained in Annexure-4 in the said writ petition cannot be said to be bad. 26. However, in view of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 20867 of 1988, the election held on 9-10-88. result whereof was declared on 10-10-89 in which respondent No. 3 was elected as Pradhan is valid and does not suffer from any vice. 27. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will he no order as to costs.