IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26488 of 2007 Between: Dharavat Shankar Naik S/o. Gholia, R/o Vasaram Thanda, H/o. Dasaigudem, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Election Commission, 3rd Floor, Budha Bhavan, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. 2 District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parja Parishad Nalgonda. 4 Mandal Parsihad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parsihad, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 5 Smt. Bhukya Kantha W/o. Ramesh, R/o. Sapatath Thanda H/o. Pinnaipalem, Suryapet (M) Nalgonda 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not ﬁnalizing and disqualifying the 5th Respondent from continuing as Member of M.P.P. Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District as per the Show Cause Notice dated 20-9-2007 and ﬁnal Show Cause Notice dated 17-10-2007 as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents to pass orders disqualifying the 5th respondent under Section 18 Read with Sec.156(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act on the basis of the Show Cause Notices dt. 20-9-2007 and 17-10-2007 and to pass such other or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26488 of 2007 ORDER: The 5th respondent herein is the elected member and President of the Mandal Praja Parishad, Suryapet Mandal. The petitioner who is a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Inampet, made a complaint dated 12.09.2007 before the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Nalgonda, alleging that the 5th respondent who is working as Anganwadi Worker, is not qualiﬁed to hold the Oﬃce of the President in view of the prohibition under Section 18 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the act”). In pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent/Chief Executive Oﬃcer issued a show cause notice dated 20.09.2007 calling upon the 5th respondent to submit her explanation to the alleged disqualiﬁcation under Section 18 of the Act. The 5th respondent submitted her explanation on 9.10.2007 contending that since Anganwadi worker is not a Government Oﬃce, the same does not operate as disqualiﬁcation. It appears that thereafter no further steps have been taken. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the inaction of the 3rd respondent in disqualifying the 5th respondent pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.09.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and, consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders disqualifying the 5th respondent under Section 18 of the Act. The 5th respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable since the disqualiﬁcation, if any, can be determined only under Section 22 of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the settled legal position that the District Court is the proper forum to decide the question of disqualiﬁcation of a member under Section 22 of the Act, it is vehemently contended that since the 5th respondent failed to approach the District Court for determination of the alleged disqualiﬁcation, the petitioner can maintain this writ petition as prayed for. In Chava rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu and another[1], after considering the scope and object of Sections 17 to 22 of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that unless there is a decision on the allegations made against the member or Sarpanch by an adjudicatory authority, which under Section 22 of the Act is the District Judge, the allegations cannot be used against the member or Sarpanch and he would continue to hold the oﬃce of member or Sarpanch unless removed in accordance with law. It was also made clear by the Division Bench that the District Panchayat Oﬃcer had no authority or jurisdiction to pass an order holding that a member or Sarpanch incurred disqualiﬁcation under the Act. Thus, it is clear that in the absence of any such adjudication, there cannot be an order disqualifying a member or Sarpanch. In the case on hand, admittedly, there was no such adjudication. As held by this Court in N. Tirupataiah v. District Panchayat Oﬃcer [2], four categories of persons, namely, (a) the member, who received the intimation; (b) any other member; (c) the panchayat secretary (executive authority) on a direction of the Gram Panchayat and (d) the Commissioner of Panchayat, are entitled to apply to the District Court for a decision under Section 22 of the Act. It was further held that as the very purpose of enacting Section 22 giving a right to the person to make an allegation in writing would be rendered otiose, sub-section (1) of Section 22 has to be interpreted purposively in the context it appears and therefore Section 22 must be held to include the person who made the complaint against member, who also has a right to move the District Court for a decision. Hence, the petitioner, if aggrieved, ought to have sought a decision from the District Court. Having failed to do so, it is not open to him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it is clear that either the respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 are not competent to decide the alleged disqualiﬁcation incurred by the 5th respondent. Hence, the alleged inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent is unfounded and the writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 30.10.2008 Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26488 of 2007 Between: Dharavat Shankar Naik S/o. Gholia, R/o Vasaram Thanda, H/o. Dasaigudem, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Election Commission, 3rd Floor, Budha Bhavan, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. 2 District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parja Parishad Nalgonda. 4 Mandal Parsihad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parsihad, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 5 Smt. Bhukya Kantha W/o. Ramesh, R/o. Sapatath Thanda H/o. Pinnaipalem, Suryapet (M) Nalgonda 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not ﬁnalizing and disqualifying the 5th Respondent from continuing as Member of M.P.P. Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District as per the Show Cause Notice dated 20-9-2007 and ﬁnal Show Cause Notice dated 17-10-2007 as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents to pass orders disqualifying the 5th respondent under Section 18 Read with Sec.156(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act on the basis of the Show Cause Notices dt. 20-9-2007 and 17-10-2007 and to pass such other or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. [1] 2004(1) ALD 54 (DB) [2] 2005(1) ALT 426