IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 27413 of 2007 AND WRIT PETITION No.4568 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.27413 of 2007: Between: Smt.Gedi Nagamani W/o.Mussalaiah R/o.Muggulla, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (PR Wing) West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 Smt.S.T.P. Gayatri Devi W/o. Ramanujacharyulu, Mugulla, Ganapara Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking further course of action in accordance with Sec.22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act on the basis of my representation/complaint dt. 29.01.2007 to decide whether the 3rd respondent has acquired any disqualification since she is having more than 3 children as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with Sec. 22 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act to disqualify the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respondent No.3: SRI T.V.S.PRABHAKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4568 of 2008 Between: S.T.P.Gayatri Devi W/o.Ramanujacharyulu Mugulla Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, (PW) West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3 Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Gadi Nagamani W/o.Musalaiah R/o.Mugulla village, Ganapavaram, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceeding No. 1765/2007-A4 (Panchayat) dated 25.2.2008 so far with a finding of disqualification of the petitioner Under Section 19 (3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the said Act and set aside the same and pass such order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for Respondent 1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Both these writ petitions are interconnected and they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.27413 of 2007. Petitioner in W.P.No.27413 of 2007 unsuccessfully contested elections to the post of Sarpanch of Muggulla village Gram Panchayat. She challenged the election of the 3rd respondent as Sarpanch by filing W.P.No.183 of 2007 contending that the 3rd respondent is disqualified to hold the said post because she has more than three children. This Court dismissed the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the District Panchayat Officer, to enable him take further action as per the provisions of Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Pursuant thereto, she made representation to the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru, on 29.01.2007, and it is her grievance that 2nd respondent has not taken any action thereon. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. Pursuant to the representation, dated 29.01.2007, made by the petitioner in W.P.No.27413 of 2007, it appears that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, issued notice to the 3rd respondent, who, in turn, filed her objections to the said notice and it is her grievance that all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 25.02.2008 under Section 22 (1) of the Act, intimating her that, as per the provisions of Section 19 (3) of the Act, she is disqualified to continue as Sarpanch and called upon her to approach the District Munsif having jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. Questioning the said proceedings, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.4568 of 2008 contending that the 2nd respondent has no power to record finding as to disqualification suffered by a candidate and as per the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act, the Executive authority has to merely intimate the alleged disqualification, but he is not entitled to record such disqualification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that as per the provision of Section 22 (1) of the Act, an intimation has to be given about the disqualification, but the 2nd respondent, instead of intimating the disqualification, has straightaway determined the 3rd respondent to be disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch, which is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Act. He further contended that if at all the 3rd respondent has suffered any disqualification, the 2nd respondent has to merely inform about such disqualification, so as to enable the 3rd respondent to avail the remedies available to her before the competent civil Court. This Court, on 07.03.2008, while ordering notice before admission in W.P.No.4568 of 2008 filed by the 3rd respondent, made the following order:- “The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.02.2008 may be treated as an intimation to the petitioner until further orders.” Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent has already approached the concerned competent Court and filed an Election O.P. In view of the above submission, the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent is treated as an intimation to the 3rd respondent under Section 22 (1) of the Act as to the disqualification allegedly suffered, as directed by this Court on 07.03.2008 in W.P.No.4568 of 2008. The finding recorded by the 2nd respondent with regard to the alleged disqualification suffered by the 3rd respondent to hold the post of Sarpanch is set aside. Since the 3rd respondent as already approached the competent civil Court and filed Election O.P., no further orders need be passed in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are closed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 29.06.2009 v v