THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7498 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Gudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 6th respondent was elected as the Sarpanch of that village. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.05.2008 to the District Collector, the 3rd respondent herein, alleging that the 6th respondent had more than two children by the date of election, and thereby, incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Acting on the said representation, the 3rd respondent got the matter enquired into by the District Panchayat Officer and Divisional Panchayat Officer. It appears that the reports reveal that the allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. This was informed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner through a letter, dated 05.08.2008. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioner alleges that the 6th respondent incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision directs that no person, who is more children, than two, as on the notified date, shall be eligible, either to be elected, or to continue in the elected office. Apart from constituting the basis for filing of an election petition, the said ground can also be the subject-matter of proceedings, under Section 22 of the Act. That provision is very comprehensive in its scope. Not only does it prescribe the Forum to decide such disputes, but also stipulates the procedure. An intimation in this regard has to be delivered to the Chief Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, and that the District Panchayt Officer has to communicate the allegation to the affected individual. Thereafter, the proceedings can be initiated before the District Court, either by the complainant or by the person, who is alleged to have incurred disqualification, or by the Panchayat Raj Institution, through its CEO. The District Collector does not figure anywhere in the scheme. Therefore, the whole approach of the petitioner was contrary to Section 22 of the Act. In all fairness to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent acted wrongly, and got the matter verified, though he has no jurisdiction, in this regard. The impugned intimation is not referable to any provision of law. The disqualification, which has the effect of setting aside the election, cannot be dealt with in a manner, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:09.04.2009. GJ