THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7040 of 2010 29.3.2010 Between: G.Janaki Ramudu, S/o.G.Krishna Murthy …Petitioner and The District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, Kurnool and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7040 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Amakathadu Village of Krishnagiri Mandal in Kurnool District in 2006. A complaint was made by one K.Krishna that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), as he is having more than two children. An enquiry was conducted followed by a show cause notice to petitioner by second respondent. It appears that the petitioner refused to receive notice. Therefore second respondent passed orders on 10.3.2010 to the effect that petitioner is disqualified under Section 19(3) of the Act with immediate effect. The Upa Sarpanch was made in-charge. Aggrieved by the order of second respondent issued in the name of District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Kurnool District, present writ petition is filed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The attention of this Court has been invited to N.Tirupataiah v District Panchayat Officer, Nellore[1]. In Tirupataiah (supra), this Court held that District Panchayat Officer (DPO) is empowered by Section 22 of the Act to receive complaint of disqualification and intimate the same to the concerned Sarpanch or Member of Gram Panchayat. He cannot himself pass an order disqualifying the incumbent. After receiving such intimation, the person allegedly disqualified has to approach the District and seek appropriate declaration. In Tirupataiah (supra), an order was passed by the DPO informing that the Sarpanch was not disqualified. The complainant then moved this Court contending that DPO has no power to decide the disqualification of elected Sarpanch. The relevant observations read as under. Para 14. The Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj fairly submits that the impugned order may be treated as notice of intimation giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Court. This Court has no reason not to countenance the submission. Be it also noted that under Section 22(2) of the Act, when an application or petition is filed before the District Court and a decision is pending before the District Court, such member shall be entitled to act as if he is not disqualified. Needless to mention that petitioner must have benefit under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to petitioner to file application/O.P. before the District _______________ March 29, 2010. (V.V.S.RAO, J) NOTE: Dispatch order copy by tomorrow. (By order) YS [1] 2005(1) ALD 181