JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—This special appeal is arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6th of April, 2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18406 of 2010, whereunder the writ petition was dismissed by holding that there is no material irregularity on the part of the District Magistrate in holding the meeting in the Vikas Bhawan, which is 21 kms. away from the place of concerned Gram Panchayat in which the writ petitioner-appellant himself has participated. By challenging the order impugned in this appeal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, has submitted that the appellant was earlier nominated as Pradhan, but by subsequent action, now respondent No. 4 has been nominated as Pradhan in such meeting. 2. The moot point for consideration is as to whether calling of meeting by the District Magistrate at Vikas Bhawan was appropriate or not. In support of this contention, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, has relied upon Section 12-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1947’) , which is as follows:- “12-B. Meetings of Gram Panchayats.—(1) A Gram Panchayat shall ordinarily meet for the transaction of business at least once every month but two months shall not intervene between two consecutive meetings. Provided that the date to be appointed for the first meeting of a Gram Panchayat, shall be within thirty days from the date of its constitution. (2) The meetings of the Gram Panchayat shall be held at such place and in such manner as may be prescribed.” 3. Section 12-J of the Act, 1947, provides for making arrangement to fill up temporary vacancy of the office of the Pradhan, which is as follows:- “12-J. Temporary arrangement in certain cases.—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 for any reason whatsoever, the prescribed authority shall nominate a member of the Gram Panchayat, to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of Pradhan until such vacancy in the office of the Pradhan is filled in, or until such incapacity of Pradhan is removed.” 4. Factually, 13 elected members of the Gram Panchayat are there. Factually, 13 elected members of the Gram Panchayat are there. All of them were present in the meeting convened by the District Magistrate in his office and out of 13 members, 9 have supported the present Pradhan, i.e. respondent No. 4, who has been nominated as Pradhan, but the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant is that 9 members have filed their notary affidavits by saying that they have not cast votes in favour of the present Pradhan. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, objected to such submission of the writ petitioner-appellant and said that whatever affidavits are intended to show before the Court, that affidavits were not placed before the prescribed authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant also submitted before us that he was not aware as to what happened in the meeting and whether the nominated Pradhan got support of majority in his favour or not. 6. We have called upon the learned Standing Counsel who, in turn, submitted from the record by reading the minutes of the meeting convened by the District Magistrate, that all 13 members were present in the meeting and 9 members expressed their wishes in support of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 also, in his affidavit, contended before us that all 13 members were present in the meeting and 9 out of 13 have supported him to be nominated as Pradhan. 7. The argument, as advanced by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, is in respect of the procedural irregularity for holding the meeting in the office of the District Magistrate instead of holding it in the concerned Gram Panchayat. 8. We are of the view that there is a difference between the ‘election’ and ‘nomination’, which has not been focused in any of the judgments, which have been shown to us for the purpose of consideration of the cause. In one of the judgments, which has been delivered by a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Justice Amitava Lala, ACJ), Kamta Pal v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (4) ADJ 219 (DB), it has been observed that so far as nomination part is concerned, it is the discretion of the prescribed authority to do the needful for the purpose. What has been explained in paragraph 5 of the judgment is for making provision in the absence of the prescribed rules and if there is any vacuum, that can be filled by the Court. Now the question is, what is the vacuum? Relying upon the judgment in Udaivir v. State Election Commission of U.P. and others, 2009 (106) RD 151 and also taking its own view, the Division Bench held that though it is a question of ‘nomination’, and not ‘election’, but the wishes of the democratically elected members should not be ruled out. The prescribed authority is not debarred from consulting the members. Therefore, such consultation process, which is required to be done by the prescribed authority, cannot be said to be a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, which is required to be held in the Gram Panchayat under Section 12-B of the Act, 1947, but if it was not done there in any exigency and it was held in the office of the prescribed authority, the decision of the prescribed authority, on the basis of the wishes of the members, cannot be said to be procedural irregularity. 9. Having so, in conformity with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we dismiss this special appeal, however without imposing any cost. ————