Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The election of Gram Panchayat was held in the year 2001. Ram Kewal Singh was declared elected Mukhiya of Alawalpur Gram Panchayat, Patna. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The said fact was concealed at the time of filing nomination. When it came to the knowledge of Election Commission it exercised its power vested by notification dated 4-3-2002. Notice was issued to Ram Kewal Singh, elected Mukhiya. Thereafter, the Election Commission passed order holding that Ram Kewal Singh was unfit for fighting election and as such he was unseated vide order dated 1-7-2002. Ram Kewal Singh filed a writ petition before this Court against the order dated 1 -7-2002 which was ultimately dismissed. He filed L.P.A. against the order passed in the writ petition. L.P.A. was also dismissed as has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he secured second largest number of votes for the post of Mukhiya and as such the writ petition has been filed by him to direct the respondents to declare him as elected Mukhiya of Alawalpur Gram Panchayat and to allow him to function as Mukhiya of the said Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that elected Mukhiya was unseated because of the fact that he concealed the fact that he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. If at all this fact would have been disclosed at the time of nomination, his nomination would have been rejected. Subsequently, he was unseated by the order of the Election Commission against which writ petition was filed which was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled under the law to be declared as Mukhiya as he got the second largest number of votes for the post of Mukhiya. 4. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no substance at all. Learned counsel could not point out any provision to show that in such a situation the candidate obtaining the second largest number of votes would be declared Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. He, however, pointed out sec. 145 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. sec. 4. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no substance at all. Learned counsel could not point out any provision to show that in such a situation the candidate obtaining the second largest number of votes would be declared Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. He, however, pointed out sec. 145 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. sec. 145 deals with election petition which, for better appreciation is quoted here-in-below:- - "If any person who has filed an election petition in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duty elected and the Prescribed Authority is of opinion-- (a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the Prescribed Authority shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected." 5. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that it confines only with the election petition, if any, filed by the person against the returned candidate. The said provision, in my view, has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. Here the position is something else which has already been stated. 6. Therefore, on consideration I find that the writ petition has no merit. Thus it is dismissed but without cost.