IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12622 of 2008 Between: Dubbula Nanaiah S/o.Pochaiah R/o.Balaji Ankonda Village Koutala Mandal, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, to the Panchayath Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2.The District Election officer cum District Collector Adilabad District, Adilabad 3.The Deputy District Election Authority & Sub Collector Asifabad, Adilabad District 4.The Returning Officer, Mandal Praja Parishath Koutala Mandal, Koutala, Adilabad District 5.The Mandal Parishath Development Officer Koutala Mandal, Koutala , Adilabad District 6.The Andhra PRadesh, state Election Commission rep.its Commissioner, 3rd floor, Buddha Bhavan, M.G.Road, Secunderabad, Secunderabad 7.The Mandal PArishath Koutala Mandal,Koutala rep.by its Development officer, Koutala Mandal, Koutala 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction declaring the order of rejection of the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Ravindranagar,Koutala Mandal, Adilabad District by the respondent No.4 and confirming the same by the respondent No.3 through orders dated 12.6.2008 in proc.No.F/674/2008 dated 12.6.2008 and not declaring that the petitioner is duly elected candidate for the said post as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Articles 14,19,and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the rules formulated under AP Panchayath Raj (conduct of Election of Members & Sarpanch of Grampanchayath Members of Mandal Parishad and Member Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1994 and violative of the principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to declare that the petitioners is elected for the post of the Members of Mandal Parishad territorial constituency of Ravindranagar,Koutala Mandal, Adilabad District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.12622 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petitioner is one of the candidates, who submitted his nomination for the post of Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) of Ravindranagar, Koutala Mandal, Adilabad District, pursuant to the notification, dated 06.06.2008. However, on 10.06.2008 i.e., the date fixed for scrutiny of the nominations, the fourth respondent-the Returning Officer, rejected the petitioner’s nomination on the ground that the required information was not furnished in the Declaration Form by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent-Deputy District Election Authority-cum-Sub-Collector, Asifabad. The appellate authority after conducting necessary enquiry by order, dated 12.06.2008, upheld the objection taken by the fourth respondent and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Election Officer can reject any nomination only on the grounds enumerated under Rule 9(2) of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.755, dated 30.11.1994, and since none of the grounds specified thereunder are attracted, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. It is to be noted that as per Rule 9(2) (iii), the failure of the candidate or his proposer to comply with any provisions of Rule 5 or Rule 7 is one of the grounds for rejection of the nomination. A perusal of Rule 5 (2) (b) shows that it is mandatory for the candidate who filed his nomination for any office reserved for Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes or Women or Backward Classes to submit a declaration specifying particular Tribe or Caste or Class of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that Tribe or Caste as Scheduled Tribe or as the case may be, a Scheduled Caste or Backward Class of the State. It is also mandatory under the said Rule that such declaration shall be made before a Gazetted Officer of the Government or before any local Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Revenue Inspector. In the case on hand, as can be seen from the impugned order passed by third respondent, the petitioner failed to furnish such information in the Declaration Form. Hence, I am unable to hold that the respondents 3 and 4 committed any error in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the respondents 3 and 4 does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the decision taken by the respondents 3 and 4 shall not be taken as conclusive and if so advised, it is open to the petitioner to raise an election dispute following due process of law. No costs. _______________ 18.06.2008 VGB