Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24868 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5096 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kulshreshtha,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ten Singh Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ten Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur in Civil Revision No. 48/2024, Anil Kumar vs. Saroj Gautam and others (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village-Araji Line Sultanpur, Block Seekhad, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur, during pendency of present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court or during the pendency of revision before the District Judge, Mirzapur." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an election petition was filed by the private respondent no.8, who has not contested the election and was only a villager. It is submitted that petitioner has been elected as Gram Pradhan, however, subsequently, the election petition was allowed by order dated 14.10.2024. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner has preferred a revision along with stay application. By means of the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, stay application of the petitioner has been rejected although the revision has been admitted and records have been summoned. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ends of justice would be served, in the event revision itself is directed to be decided in the time bound manner subject to the protection being granted that any temporary arrangement being made by the respondent-authorities would abide by the decision in the pending revision. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that revision of petitioner would be decided in a time bound manner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that present petition arises out of an order rejecting the stay application in the revisional proceedings arising out of election petition, it is hereby directed that revision of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.13-revisional authority within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. It is hereby made clear that any temporary arrangement made under Section 12(J) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 would abide by the decision of the revision, however, respondents are restrained from holding fresh election for the post of Gram Pradhan during pendency of the revision. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad