THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3346 of 2011 Date:15.02.2011 Between: Gaddaneedi Ushanna ..... Petitioner AND Bakka Balaiah and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P. Umapathi Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 passed in P.R.O.P.No.2 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional District judge, Mahabubnagar (for short ‘civil Court’). I have heard Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 06.08.2006. Respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 to declare that the petitioner has incurred disqualification for continuing as Sarpanch under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) as he had a third child born after he was elected as Sarpanch. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.2 relegated respondent No.1 to the civil Court and accordingly respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 22(1) of the Act for a declaration that the petitioner cannot continue as Sarpanch in view of the disqualification incurred by him. The civil Court, which entertained the said application registered it as P.R.O.P.No.2 of 2008 and has conducted a full fledged trial, after framing the following issues: 1. Whether R-1 is disqualified to contest the post of Sarpanch? 2. Whether the election of Respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of Kakarlapadu village is null and void? 3. To what relief? Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the civil Court. Respondent No.1 got himself examined as P.W.1 apart from examining P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-19. The petitioner got himself examined as R.W.1 apart from examining R.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf and marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. The civil Court has marked Exs.X-1 and X-2 through P.W.4, the Tahsildar. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the civil Court has held issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner and has accordingly decreed the O.P. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the civil Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and erroneously allowed the O.P. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the material on record. The civil Court has mainly placed reliance on Ex.A-15 - information furnished under Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Head Master, Ex.A-19 - Arogya Sree card, Ex.X-1 - Arogya Sree Aquittance record and Ex.X-2 – Ration card. These documents clearly and categorically showed that as on the date of the nomination filed by the petitioner, he had two children, by name, Mahesh and Manisha and after he was elected as Sarpanch, he had his third child Nandini born. In the face of this unimpeachable evidence, the civil Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 19(3)of the Act, under which a person having more than two children either at the time of or after his election shall be disqualified for election and shall not continue as a Member. The findings rendered by the civil Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will neither re-appreciate the evidence nor interfere with such findings of the civil Court. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4147 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th February, 2011 GHN