HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1585 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.Prakash Rao) This appeal is at the instance of the respondent in the writ petition where the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein inter alia assailing, by way of writ of certiorari, the orders passed in O.P.No.860 of 2006, dated 01/08/2007, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The facts in brief are that in the elections held for Tallapudi Gram Panchayat on 02/08/2006 which was reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman, both the parties herein filed their respective nominations and the respondent got elected. Challenging the same, the appellant had filed O.P.No.860 of 2006 before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, purportedly under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity ‘the Act’), seeking to set aside the said elections and for consequential declaration in her favour. After contesting the same, the District Court allowed the OP on the ground that the respondent is disqualified. Challenging the same, the respondent has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.16774 of 2007 wherein several contentions were raised especially to the effect that having regard to the scope of Section 22 of the Act, the question of granting the relief seeking to set aside the elections and consequential relief to declare the petitioner therein as elected does not arise and is totally without jurisdiction, and the said writ petition was allowed accordingly. Challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant by this writ appeal inter alia contended that primarily the petition as has been filed under Section 22 of the Act is perfectly maintainable since the same is based on the disqualification incurred by the respondent herein, therefore, necessarily, it followed that such reliefs can be granted. Further, it is also pointed out that no such objection was raised, in the Court below, in regard to the maintainability and jurisdiction. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to raise those objections now. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the orders of the learned Single Judge on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Act and the specific relief as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, it would not take any comprehensive relief of election dispute and therefore, no such declaration is permissible, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Considering these submissions and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether under the facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the appellant herein purportedly under Section 22 of the Act is well within its jurisdiction and maintainable. Before considering the aforesaid point, necessarily, it requires to refer to the relief as sought for in the main OP which has been filed by the appellant itself, which reads as follows: (a) declaring that the declaration of the election of the 7th respondent Smt.Erlapati Veera Lakshmi to the post of Sarpanch/President of the 8th respondent Tallapudi Gram Panchayat held on 02/08/2006 by the respondents 1 to 6 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law; (b) for consequential declaration that the petitioner viz., Smt.Guda Haritha Rani is declared as elected to the post of Sarpanch/President of the 8th respondent-Tallapudi Gram Panchayat; (c) for the costs of the petition and to grant such other reliefs as the Court deems fit, just and necessary. Now, we have to see whether such relief based on the ground of the disqualification incurred by the respondent herein comes within the parameters of Section 22 of the Act. The said provision needs to be referred to, which reads as follows: “22. Authority to decide questions of disqualification of members:-- (1) Where an allegation is made that any person who is elected as a member of a gram panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Section 17, Section 18, Section 19 or Section 20 by any voter or authority to the executive authority in writing and the executive authority has given intimation of such allegation to the member through the District Panchayat Officer and such member disputes the correctness of the allegation so made, or where any member himself entertains any doubt whether, or not he has become disqualified under any of those sections, such member or any other member may, and the executive authority, at the direction of the gram panchayat or the Commissioner shall, within a period of two months from the date on which such intimation is given or doubt is entertained, as the case may be, apply to the having jurisdiction over the area in which office of the gram panchayat is situated for decision. (2) Pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or were not disqualified. (3) Where a person ceases to be the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a gram panchayat as a consequence of his ceasing to be a number of the gram panchayat under clause (b) of Section 20 and is restored later to his membership of the gram panchayat under sub- section (2) of Section 21, he shall, with effect from the date of such restoration, be deemed to have been restored also to the office of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be.” On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, the only suit which is contemplated for knocking the doors of the District Court is on the ground of only disqualification and not beyond. Necessarily, the declaration has to be sought only against the disqualification but not beyond. Any relief, going beyond or touching or affecting the election, squarely falls within the purview of the election dispute in election petition and therefore, all such disputes which could have been raised in a regular election petition, on the grounds as contemplated under the Election Tribunal Rules (for brevity ‘the Rules’), especially, in Rule 12 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 03/03/1995, which has been framed under Section 233 of the Act, can only be raised, but could not take a relief of declaration in result before the District Court under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore, prima-facie, we are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and hold that the entire process and the manner in which the very petition has been filed may be treated as a regular election petition. Even then, as relied on by the learned counsel on Rules 3, 5 and other applications as to Court Fee and deposit amount, it follows that such regular election petition is not maintainable. Hence, we do not find any merits to warrant interference. There are no merits. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date: 24-04-2009 SKM