HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19795 of 2007 DATE:30.03.2010 Between: P. Ramulu … Petitioner and The Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Karimnagar and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19795 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Goverdhanagiri Grampanchayat, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. Some controversy existed as to his eligibility, with reference to Section 19 (3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which disqualifies an individual from holding the office of a Grampanchayat, if he has given birth to more than three children. The Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, 1st respondent, issued a birth certificate, dated 23.10.2006, to the effect that the date of birth of the 3rd child of the petitioner is 12.04.1995. On a complaint made by the 4th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, 2nd respondent, got enquired into the matter and issued proceedings, dated 02.08.2007, directing cancellation of the date of birth certificate issued by the 1st respondent. This was followed by a letter, dated 23.08.2007, issued by the 1st respondent cancelling the date of birth certificate, dated 23.10.2006, issued by it, in respect of P. Krishna Chaitanya @ Akhil, son of the petitioner herein. The petitioner challenges the same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner, no doubt, obtained a date of birth certificate in respect of his third child, may be, at a belated stage. Obviously, it was needed to be produced, at the time of filing of nominations. The circumstances, under which the 2nd respondent came into the picture, are not clear. He is not the authority who issued the date of birth certificate. Assuming that he has got any appellate or review powers upon the certificates vis-a-vis the certificate issued by the 1st respondent, he has to mention the provision of law and issue show- cause notices to the respective parties. The 1st respondent issued the impugned order, which is based on the direction issued by the 2nd respondent. The proceedings are, not only violative of principles of natural justice, but also bereft of the details, as to the relevant provisions of law, under which they are being issued. 4. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, left open to respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 30th March, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19795 of 2007 (Allowed) 30th March, 2010 CBS