IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21187 of 2010 Between: Sri G. Raja Komuraiah ..... Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Warangal District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y. Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21187 of 2010 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner, who is a Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Committee, Narakkapeta, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District, is that respondent No.1 is not taking any action on his representation dated 04.08.2010 made on respondent No.4 incurring disqualification to continue as Vice President on his failure to attend three consecutive Mandal Parishad meetings. Though notice before admission was issued, no counter affidavits have been filed. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao appeared for respondent No.4. Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 is not justified in not initiating action in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) when the intimation on the alleged disqualification of respondent No.4 was received by him. I find merit in this submission of the learned counsel. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner made in his representation, when once respondent No.1 received the intimation, alleging disqualification incurred by respondent No.4, it is his duty to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition, with the direction to respondent No.1 to examine the representation of the petitioner stated to have been sent by him on the alleged disqualification of respondent No.4 and take appropriate action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26961 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.09.2010 ES