JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 20-2-93 by which District Panchayat Raj Officer, Fatehpur has directed that Respondent No. 3 should be given charge of the office of Pradhan. 3. Facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondent No. 3 is elected Up Pradhan and he was continuing in the office right from the date of his election. It appears that office of Pradhan fell vacant and Respondent No. 3 being Up Pradhan became entitled to function as Pradhan. However, an objection was raised that he is suffering from leprosy and thus, suffers from disqualification u/s 5A(f) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') and cannot be allowed to function as Pradhan. It also appears that Respondent No. 3 was required, to get himself medically examined by District Panchayat Raj Officer who subsequently, after perusal of report of Chief Medical Officer dated 5-11-92 passed the impugned order permitting Respondent No. 3 to discharge the function of Pradhan. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that alleged report of (chief Medical Officer was based on the opinion of a Doctor who was not a specialist in leprosy add the impugned order based on such report cannot be sustained. In my opinion all these questions are wholly irrelevant and need not be gone into at this stage. Section 95(a) (g)(v) of the Act provides that person suffering from disqualification mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m), “of Section 5-A of the Act, may be removed from the office of Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat etc. Thus, it is clear that on basis of any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 5-A of the Act, the office bearer may be removed from the office. If Respondent No. 3 is suffering from the alleged disqualification, the proper course would be to initiate proceedings against him u/s 95(1) (g) of the Act for removal from office and pass orders against him after giving opportunity of hearing. The disqualification could not be assumed and under the scheme of the Act there is no automatic disqualification on the basis of which Respondent No. 3 could be prohibited from discharging the functions and duties of the office held by him or by virtue of which he may discharge the duties and functions of some other office. The disqualification could not be assumed and under the scheme of the Act there is no automatic disqualification on the basis of which Respondent No. 3 could be prohibited from discharging the functions and duties of the office held by him or by virtue of which he may discharge the duties and functions of some other office. Thus, the order passed in favour of Respondent No. 3 is legal and valid. However, it shall be open to the Petitioner to approach Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings against Respondent No. 3. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that u/s 12J of tie Act Up Pradhan may exercise powers and discharge duties of Pradhan only as a matter of temporary arrangement and authorities must take recourse to Section 11B for electing a regular Pradhan. In my opinion, I need not enter into this question too as the challenge in this petition is about alleged disqualification of the Respondent, No. 3. It shall be open to the Petitioner to persuade the authorities to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act to fill up the vacancy” in the office of Pradhan. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that by order of this Court dated 12-3-93 counter-affidavit was called for from the other side and once the Court passed order for deciding the case after hearing other side, it cannot be disposed of at this stage. However, I am not impressed by the submissions of learned Counsel. The Writ Petition is still before the Court for admissions/hearing, and it may be disposed of. It is also noteworthy that under order dated 12-3-93 notice for service on Respondent No. 3 was to go but no steps were taken for service on him, and Petitioner cannot blame anybody except himself for the fault. In my opinion, considering the short question involved, it does not appear necessary to wait for the reply from the Respondent. 7. For the reasons staged above it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 20-2-93 suffers from any error of law. The Writ Petition has no force and subject to above observations, it is rejected.