JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—This appeal has been preferred by one Sri Kamta Pal being the respondent in the original writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.3.2010. The sole question involved therein is that whether the Prescribed Authority, at the time of nomination of a member to hold the office of the Pradhan in absence of elected Pradhan and Up-Pradhan, will exercise the power without considering all pros and cons or taking into account the wishes of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat. Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is quoted hereinunder : “12-J. Arrangement in temporary vacancy in the office of Pradhan.—(1) Where the office of Pradhan is vacant by reason of death, removal, resignation or otherwise, or where the Pradhan is incapable to act by reason of absence, illness or otherwise, the Up-Pradhan shall exercise all powers and discharge all duties of the Pradhan. (2) Where the offices of both, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are vacant for any reason whatsoever, or when both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are incapable to act for any reason whatsoever, the prescribed authority shall nominate a member of the Gram Panchayat to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of the Pradhan until such vacancy in the office of either the Pradhan or the Up-Pradhan is filled in, or until such incapacity of either of the two is removed” 2. Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant has contended that when law has not prescribed to add or subtract anything with respect of the power of the Prescribed Authority, the same cannot be directed to be made without any sanction of the Court. 3. According to the respondent, ten persons out of thirteen elected members filed their affidavits expressing confidence upon respondent No. 4 herein. 4. The State has contended before us by saying that in view of the direction of the learned Single Judge in its order impugned dated 16.3.2010 the meeting was held of the elected members in which 10 members were present and they have shown their confidence to the respondent No. 4. This has been communicated by way of instruction dated 30th March, 2010, i.e. the date when the special appeal was filed, copy of which supplied by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record,. 5. According to us, the law is to be interpreted in a proper manner. This has been communicated by way of instruction dated 30th March, 2010, i.e. the date when the special appeal was filed, copy of which supplied by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record,. 5. According to us, the law is to be interpreted in a proper manner. The Act prescribes the policy in a codified manner. It is the duty of the law maker to make provision, giving power to the rule making authority, prescribing certain rules. In the absence thereof if there is any vacuum, the Court is not debarred from filling the same. However, the same is depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is an impractical approach to say that a Prescribed Authority sitting in his armed chair in his office of the District will be capable for nomination without understanding the wishes of the democratical elected members of the Gram Panchayat. He has to take steps to eliminate the mistakes and he is not debarred from doing so. Being an executive, he or she can get an idea from the members of the Gram Panchayat who will give him sound and impartial opinion about a member good enough to be appointed as such to hold such posts as a temporary measure. This was also discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in Udaivir v. State Election Commission of U.P. through its Chairman and others, 2009 (106) RD 151 where it has been held that the Authority cannot be debarred from consulting the members. Therefore, we feel that we cannot take a contrary view, illogically. 6. Against this background and when we find that 10 members have already expressed their wishes in favour of respondent No. 4, we cannot interfere in the order itself. 7. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. 8. In any event, whether the knowledge or wishes of the elected members will be supplied openly or by the confidential ballot is a different cause of action and to protect the interest, if any, the appellant can raise his voice before the appropriate forum but not before us by way of special appeal as we cannot go beyond the scope of the special appeal. ————