PRAYAGRAJ, June 27 -- Holding that gram pradhans cannot be permitted to continue as administrators, the Allahabad high court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to specify a time-frame for conducting panchayat polls in the state. The order was passed by the high court while hearing a petition challenging the order of the state government by which pradhans were given power of administrator till their elections are held. Justice Siddhartha Nandan, on a petition filed by one Arbind Rathor, passed the order. Rathor had moved the court challenging an order dated May 25 as well as consequential order the next day. According to the May 25 government order, existing gram pradhans were appointed as administrators following the completion of their five-year term. A further prayer was made seeking direction to the state election commission to place on record a detailed and time-bound schedule for completion of the entire three-tier panchayat election process in the mandatory compliance of Article 243E and 243K of the Constitution. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed under Section 12(3-A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which was subject matter of challenge in Pram Lal Patel vs State of UP in 2000 wherein a division bench of the high court found this provision to be in violation of Section 243E and 243K. Calling state authorities to file counter-affidavit, the court observed that under Article 243E, of the Constitution of India, the term of the panchayat is of a fixed tenure, i.e., five years from its first meeting and no longer. The additional chief standing counsel submitted that similar controversy is engaging attention in PIL No. 559 of 2026 (Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of UP and others). In that matter, the UP government's stand was that since it has appointed an OBC Commission for determining the reservation aspects relating to the OBC category, panchayat elections cannot be held until the panel's exercise is completed as decision on the reservations would be part of the polls. Till date, the OBC Commission has not submitted its report. On other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission submitted that the electoral roll has already been published on June 10 and as such they are in a position to hold the elections and the state government has to provide the necessary logistics for holding the elections; ; but due to the aforesaid stand of the state government, there is an impediment in holding the elections. After hearing, the court said: "From the perusal of the impugned orders dated May 25, 2026, and May 26, 2026, it is evident that the said orders have been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(3-A) of the Act, 1947, which has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore these orders are apparently nonest." "In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the OBC Commission as a party and considering the aforesaid, the orders impugned are nonest, the pradhans cannot be permitted to continue as an administrator," the court added. The court also said, "However, as a last opportunity to the state government, they are permitted to file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the report of the OBC Commission, if any, and other details, clearly disclosing the time frame in which the elections shall be held failing which respondent no.2 (principal secretary, panchayat raj) shall be present before the court on the next date fixed." The court further said, "In the personal affidavit to be filed by the respondent no.2, he shall give explanation as to under what circumstances, he has issued the impugned orders, when the provisions mentioned in the impugned order, has already been held to be unconstitutional by a division bench of this court failing which it can be construed that a prima facie contempt has been committed by him with regard to the decision of division bench of this court." The court then listed the case for hearing on July 13....