IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16915 of 2008 Between: K.Ramajogi Naidu S/o.Ramulu R/o.Vadra Pally Munaga Paka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayath Officer, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam 2 The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam 3 The Divisional Panchayathi Officer, Visakhapatnam Division Visakhapatnam 4 The Mandal Development officer, Munagapaka Mandal Visakhapatnam District 5 Kandregula Nooka Raju S/o.Sanyasi Naidu R/o.Vadra Pally Munaga Paka Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing the complaint inP.No.5874/2007 dated 29.12.2007 made by the Sarpanch, Ward Members and the residents of the village of Vadrapally for disqualiﬁcation of the 5th respondent tohold the post of M.P.T.C.of Munagapaka , Visakhapatnam District as contrary to the provisions of the AP Panchayath Raj Act,1994. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16915 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be a resident of Vadrapally Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Alleging that the 5th respondent herein, who was elected as a Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Munagapaka Mandal in the elections held in the year 2006, suﬀered a disqualiﬁcation under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the petitioner made a complaint dated 29.12.2007 before the District Collector. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent – Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer was directed to conduct enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, though the 3rd respondent proposed an enquiry vide Memo dated 12.5.2008, no further steps were taken. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents. 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.” Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the above case, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate steps following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.08.2008 gbs [1] 2004 (1) ALD 54 (DB)