JUDGMENT S. C. Verma, J. 1. As both the writ petitions relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of together. 2. The Nagar palika, Sikendra Rao, was constituted after the general election of the Members and President on 17-11-1988. The notification under section 56 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was issued on 21-11-1988. One Sartaj Ali Khan was elected as President of the Nagar Palika. Thereafter the election of the Senior and Junior Vice President was held in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and by special resolution dated 14-6-1989, Sri Jai Charan Lal Anal was declared elected as Senior Vice President and Sri Amar Singh as Junior Vice President. The Senior and Junior Vice President continued to function. However, some dispute arose and a motion of no confidence was passed on 15-4-1991 by majority of 14 Members against the President Sri Sartaj Ali Khan. The proceedings of the meeting of the motion of no confidence were challenged in Writ Petition No. 10972 of 1991 and an interim order was passed under which Sri Sartaj Ali Khan was allowed to function as President of the Nagar Palika. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 21-5-1991 whereafter the resolution of no confidence against the President Sri Sartaj Ali Khan became operative and he ceased to function as President of the Nagar Palika. The Senior Vice President Sri Jai Charan Lal Anal became entitled to officiate as the President of the Nagar Palika. An order dated 29-5-1991 purported to be in exercise of the powers under section 54-A (1) of the Act was passed. By this order, the District Magistrate held that the President has been removed on account of no confidence motion being passed against him which has been upheld by the Honourable High Court and the same became operative with effect from 25-5-1991 and there is a casual vacancy in view of the provisions of sections 44-A and 47-A on the post of President. The election of Senior and Junior Vice President held on 14-6-1989 was after three months of the constitution of the Board, there could be no Vice President elected in accordance with the Act and, as such, fresh elections for the post of Vice President, Senior and Junior, are required to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 54-A (2); The District Magistrate, in these circumstances, exercising the powers under section 54-A (1), appointed the Pargana Magistrate as Administrator of Nagar Palika, Sikendra Rao to function till the election for the post of President is held. The order dated 29-5-1991 has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 17324 of 1991. 3. The other Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 24214 of 1991 has been filed by a Member of the Board for a Writ of quo warranto calling upon respondents 3 and 4 the Senior and Junior Vice President to show under what authority of law they are holding the office. It has been alleged that as the Board was notified to be constituted on 21-11-1988, the election of Senior and Junior Vice President was admittedly held on 14-6-1989 beyond three months and, as such, it would be null and void and respondents 3 and 4 had no right to hold the public office of Senior and Junior Vice President of Nagar Palika, Sikendra Rao. In support, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case Kalyan Datt Kaushik v. The District Magistrate Haridwar, 1991 UP LB EC 991 (FB), has been relied upon. 4. In dealing with Writ Petition No. 17324 of 1991, the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the Distt Magistrate is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside as the District Magistrate, in exercise of the powers under section 54-A (i) of the Act, could not decide as to whether the election of the Vice President was valid or not. The question of consideration of validity of election of Vice President or the consideration of the special resolution by which the Senior and Junior Vice President were declared to be elected can not be adjudicated by the District Magistrate. IN support of this contention, the law laid down in the case of Rishi Kumar Gupta v. Nanhoo Mal Yadav, 1976 ALR 210, has been relied. We find substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. IN support of this contention, the law laid down in the case of Rishi Kumar Gupta v. Nanhoo Mal Yadav, 1976 ALR 210, has been relied. We find substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. While considering the powers exercised by the District Magistrate under section 34 of the Act, the learned Judges in Rishi Kumar Gupta's case held : "The first question which is required to be considered in the present case is whether the Commissioner could legally cancel the resolution dated April 29, 1975. The said resolution has been cancelled by the Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 34 of the Act. Under section 34 the Prescribed Authority may, by order in writing prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed or made under the Municipalities Act or any other enactment by a Board or a Committee of a Board, or a joint committee, if in its opinion such resolution or order is of a nature to cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to be public or to any class or body of persons lawfully employed and may prohibit the doing or continuance by any person of any set in pursuance of or under cover of such resolution or order." "This section confers extraordinary power on the Prescribed Authority to be used in urgent cases to prohibit the execution of a resolution passed by a Municipal Board. The pre requisite for the exercise of this power is that the Prescribed Authority must be of the opinion that the resolution passed by a Board is of such a nature that if it is given effect to the same is likely "to cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public". None of these three words have any technical legal meaning. The word obstruction means 'obstacle placed on the use of a highway. Every member of public has a right to pass or repass. But if by any action an attempt is made to obstruct the user or the obstacle placed renders the exercise of that right unsafe or inconvenient the same would amount to obstruction. The word obstruction means 'obstacle placed on the use of a highway. Every member of public has a right to pass or repass. But if by any action an attempt is made to obstruct the user or the obstacle placed renders the exercise of that right unsafe or inconvenient the same would amount to obstruction. ' Considering the scope of this section in the light of the above it appears to us that the power given by it can be exercised only when a resolution passed by a Board affects public in the sense in which these words are understood in their ordinary use. No member of the public could be said to have been obstructed, annoyed or injured by the fact that the resolution electing respondent no- 1 as Vice President had been passed by the Board in April 29, 1975 despite the fact, notices of this meeting had not been served on all members. It is settled that the words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary and popular sense unless there is something in the context requiring a conclusion to the contrary interpreting the section in its ordinary grammatical sense, we find that neither the language employed nor the context warrant the conclusion which the learned counsel for the appellants wants us to arrive at. 5. Another important feature of the question is that power conferred by section 34 can be utilised in a case where. 'the execution or further execution of a resolution or order passed by a Board is required to be prohibited. But where, as here, the resolution does not require any act to be done for enforcing it, there is really nothing to prohibit. In the present case respondent no. 1 was elected as Vice President on April 29, 1975 by a special resolution. Section 54 or any another provision of this Act does not provide for any other formality to be undergone or performed before a person elected as Vice President assumes the office, Sub section (2) of section 54 of the Act gives to the Vice President a fixed term of one year. This term starts running immediately with effect from the date on which the special resolution electing him as such is passed. Accordingly, the resolution is self operative and gets exhausted the moment it is passed. This term starts running immediately with effect from the date on which the special resolution electing him as such is passed. Accordingly, the resolution is self operative and gets exhausted the moment it is passed. Hence there remains nothing in the execution or further execution of which could be prohibited under section 34 of the Act. 6. The learned Judges further considering the power to be exercised by the District Magistrate under section 54-A held ; "In this regard he also asserted that the order of the District Magistrate under section 54-A was made after an enquiry that no Vice President had been elected in accordance with this Act, therefore, the finding arrived at by the District Magistrate in connection with section 54-A proceedings were final Accordingly the respondent no. 1 could not be held to have been duly elected by the special resolution dated April 29, 1975. Section 54-A of the Act no doubt empower the District Magistrate to exercise and perform the powers and functions of the President himself or to appoint another Gazetted Officer for the said purpose when there is no Vice President otherwise able to function But section 54-A does not authorise the District Magistrate to make enquiry with regard to the fact whether the election of a Vice President was valid or not. This section will apply only to a case where as a fact there is no President or Vice President functioning as such. The question of validity of his election is outside the domain of the enquiry of the District Magistrate. If the submission of the appellants is correct the same would result in converting section 54-A into a machinary for challenging the election to the office of the Vice President. This is, however, not the purpose of section. It empowers the District Magistrate to appoint a Gazetted Officer authorising him to discharge function of a President when there is no Vice President till elections are not held. The submission, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant that as the District Magistrate had found that the election of respondent No. 1 was illegal, therefore, he could lawfully appoint the Additional District Magistrate to discharge the function of the Vice President is devoid of substance. Apart from the above the appointment of the Additional District Magistrate as Vice President was only consequential to the cancellation of the special resolution by the Commissioner. Apart from the above the appointment of the Additional District Magistrate as Vice President was only consequential to the cancellation of the special resolution by the Commissioner. As we have found that the Commissioner was wrong on rescinding the resolution respondent No. 1 was entitled to function as Vice President. In these circumstances section 54-A could not be pressed into service in the instant case." 7. In our opinion by applying the aforesaid law, the impugned order of the District Magistrate can not be sustained. The impugned order of the District Magistrate purported to have been passed under the provisions of section 54-A (1), is liable to be set aside The District Magistrate cannot adjudicate regarding the validity of the election of Senior and Junior Vice President and can not rescind the special resolution or prohibit the execution or further execution of the resolution of the Board in this regard. The order of the District Magistrate treating the Senior and Junior Vice President not to have been elected in accordance with the provisions of the Act and thereby holding that there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice President is liable to be set aside. The order dated 29-5-1991 passed by the District Magistrate under section 54-A (1) of the Act is quashed. 8. Now dealing with Writ Petition No. 24214 of 1991, from the facts of the case, it is established that the election of Senior and Junior Vice President was not done within three months from the date of due constitution of the Board as notified under section 56. Admittedly the elections of Senior and Junior Vice President were conducted by the Board on 14-6-1989 beyond three months and applying the law laid down in the Full Bench decision of Kalyan Datt Kaushik (Supra) the election can not be treated to be validly held and fresh election for the post of Senior and Junior Vice President will have to be conducted in accordance with provisions of Section 54-A (2) (a) of the Act. The Full Bench answered the question referred in the following words : "For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1, referred to us, in the following words : Within three months of the constitution of the Board as notified under Section 56 or within three months from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as the case may be, the election of Vice President has to take place in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 54 and not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) to (9) of Section 54-A. If, however, the President fails or omits to have the Vice President elected within the aforesaid period, the Vice President has got to be elected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) to (9) of Section 54-A. Moreover, even in a situation attracting the provisions contained in sub section (1) of Section 54-A, i. e. in a situation where no Vice President has been elected in accordance with the act, a Vice President has to be got elected in accordance with subsection (2) to. (9) of section 54-A. We make it clear that mere failure of the President to get the Vice President elected within a period of three months aforesaid does not by itself attract the action under Section 54-A (1), it only means that the Vice President has got to be elected in accordance with subsections (2) to (9) of section 54- A Sub Section (1) of Section 54-A is attracted only when two essential conditions (each of which contemplates, more than one situation) are satisfied. We think it appropriate to make a further clarification ; In computing the period of three months prescribed in sub section (4) of section 54, the period during which the election of Vice President is stayed by a competent authority or court shall have to be excluded." Thus in our opinion, the election of the Senior and Junior Vice President would not be in accordance with law and respondents 3 and 4 have no authority to hold the office of Senior and Junior Vice President of the Nagar Palika, Sikendra Rao. It has also to be considered whether the present writ petition filed on behalf of Sri Prem Mohan Verma claiming to be a member of the Municipal Board on 6-9-1991 should be entertained or not, when the election of Vice President was held on 14-6-1989. The petitioner has alleged that immediately after the election he had filed two representations dated 20-6-1989 and 7-2-1990 to the District Magistrate. Aligarh filed as Annexures 3' and 4' to the writ petition. These representations remained undisposed obviously as the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction either to rescind the special resolution by which the Senior and Junior Vice President were elected or to consider the validity of their elections. This indicates that the petitioner had not slept over the matter but he had been agitating about the validity of the election of the Vice President. The Petitioner got a fresh cause of action to reagitate this matter before this Court when the Senior Vice President in absence of the President became eligible to officiate on the post of President. By this time, the decision of the Full Bench had also been pronounced and the legal position in this regard had become quite clear. In these circumstances, we do not find any negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. 9. As the casual vacancy under Section 44-A of the Act in the office of the President had occured and the same has not been filled and no President has been appointed within three months and no Vice President has been elected in accordance with this Act, an Administrator is required to be appointed in view of the provisions of Section 54-A of the Act as also to hold the election of Vice President in accordance with the provisions of section 54-A (2) to (9). It has come on record that before the respondent no. 3 who claimed to be appointed as the Senior Vice President could take charge, the Administrator was appointed and he started functioning in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 29-5-1991. At present also, the Administrator is functioning in these circumstances, it is not necessary that any fresh appointment of Administrator be made. 3 who claimed to be appointed as the Senior Vice President could take charge, the Administrator was appointed and he started functioning in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 29-5-1991. At present also, the Administrator is functioning in these circumstances, it is not necessary that any fresh appointment of Administrator be made. The Administrator who is already functioning is, therefore, directed to take immediate steps within 15 days of a certified copy of this order being placed before him for holding the elections of Senior and Junior Vice President of Nagar Palika, Sikendra Rao, in accordance with the provisions of Section 54-A (2) to (9). 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of. In the result. Writ Petition No. 17324 of 1991 is allowed. The order dated 29-5-1991 is quashed. However, as stated above, the appointment of the Administrator shall continue. Writ Petition No 24214 of 1991 is also allowed and is disposed of with the directions as stated above. Petition allowed.