IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26443 OF 2009 Between: Boggavarapu Rajya Lakshmi W/o. Kanakaratnachari …. Petitioner AND The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole and others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26443 OF 2009 ORDER: The elections for Kanigiri Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District were held in the year 2006 and the petitioner and the fourth respondent filed their nominations for 16th Ward and the 4th respondent was elected. The petitioner filed E.O.P. No.1 of 2008 before the Principal District Judge, Ongole under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the 4th respondent incurred disqualification on account of having more than two children. The District Court allowed the E.O.P. through an order dated 05-09-2009 and held that the 4th respondent incurred disqualification to continue as Member of the 16th Ward of Kanigir Gram Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that being the candidate, who secured next highest votes, she was not declared elected, and seeks appropriate direction in this regard. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. E.O.P. No.1 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against the 4th respondent is one under Section 22 of the Act. That provision deals with adjudication of the matters, relating to disqualification of the elected representatives. The disqualification, alleged against the 4th respondent, was one under Section 19 of the Act. After considering the pleadings and taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, the trial Court allowed the E.O.P. In case, that order has become final, the only result is that the 4th respondent shall not be entitled to remain in office as Ward Member. Even if that be so, the question of the petitioner being declared as elected, does not arise. Such a relief can be granted only in an election petition challenging the very election of the 4th respondent, wherein, not only a prayer for setting aside the election of the 4th respondent is to be made but also a further prayer for declaring the petitioner as elected candidate, is also to be incorporated. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner that she be declared as the elected candidate, cannot be granted. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is further directed that in case the order passed in E.O.P. No.1 of 2008 has become final, the authorities under the Act, shall take steps to fill the vacancy in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J February 09, 2010. KTL.