IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION N0 : 18613 of 2008 Between: Vedama Kamala, W/o. Vedama Yeshwanth, R/o. Rambaiguda, Khanapalli Post, Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Zilla Parishad Office, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Adilabad. 2 The O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Rep by its Officer, Adilabad. 3 Arthram Laxman, S/o. Muthaiah, MPTC, R/o. Danthanpalli, Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad 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 will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in taking action over the representation made by the petitioner on 25-8-2008 seeking disqualiﬁcation of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 19(3) of the AP Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 authorities to declare the 3rd respondent as disqualiﬁed to continue as M.P.T.C member. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18613 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the elected President of MPTC, Rambaiguda Post, Khanapalli Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District. Alleging that the third respondent herein who is a member of the MPTC is not entitled to continue in oﬃce on account of his disqualiﬁcation under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent on 25-08-2008. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the ﬁrst respondent in taking action on his representation, this writ petition is ﬁled. The petitioner also seeks a direction that the third respondent shall not be permitted to participate in the meting proposed to be conducted on 28-08-2008 for consideration of no conﬁdence motion against her. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1537 & 1790 of 2003, dated 21-11-2003 in CHAVA ROSAIAH v. CHINTALA VENKATESWARLU AND ANOTHER[1]. Having considered the scope of Sections 19 and 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, in detail, the Division Bench held as under : “… … on literal interpretation, it must be held that Section 22 being only an enabling provision conferring right on such member or Sarpanch who receives an intimation of allegations of his not being qualiﬁed or having become disqualiﬁed that within two months he can approach the District Court for a decision. It is only on decision being rendered by the District Court holding that a member or Sarpanch is not qualiﬁed or has become disqualiﬁed then consequential action can be taken. Section 20 operates automatically that a person or member subject to any disqualiﬁcation speciﬁed in Section 19 and subject to Section 22 such member or Sarpanch shall cease to hold oﬃce. Opening words of Section 20 “subject to the provisions of Section 22 a member shall cease to hold Oﬃce” would rather support the view which we are taking that the disqualiﬁcations as speciﬁed in Section 19 would operate as a bar against a member or Sarpanch to hold the Office only when there is a decision rendered by District Court as envisaged in Section 22 and not otherwise.” From the above decision though it is clear that the alleged disqualiﬁcation bars the third respondent to hold the oﬃce only upon a decision by the District Court under Section 22 of the Act, however, the ﬁrst respondent-Chief Executive Oﬃcer, is bound to take necessary action in terms of Section 22 of the Act on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the allegations made by the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25-08-2008 and take appropriate action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 27-08-2008 KLP [1] 2004 (1) ALD 54 (DB)