HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.23611 of 2011 Date: 25-8-2011 Between K.Sainath Sharma … Petitioner and The District Collector/Election Authority, (Gram Panchayats), Kadapa district, Kadapa and 5 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.23611 of 2011 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to dispose of the representation dated 08-8-2011 submitted to the respondents 1 to 5, whereunder the petitioner has sought extension of his term as Sarpanch up to 2015. 2. At the outset, the writ petition is misconceived. It is the case of the petitioner that in Gram Panchayat elections held on 29-7-2006, his opponent, the 6th respondent herein, was declared elected. The petitioner challenged his election in Election O.P.No.2 of 2006 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram. The said Election O.P., was allowed on 30-8-2010 setting aside the election of the 6th respondent and declaring the petitioner as elected. The 6th respondent filed W.P.No.24392 of 2010 and obtained an interim order on 28-12-2010. Prior to the said order, the petitioner assumed office on 20-9-2010. Thereafter, on appeal against the interim order in W.A.No.3 of 2011, the interim order obtained by the 6th respondent was set aside by the writ appellate court on 05-01-2011. Thus, the petitioner continued to function in the office of the Sarpanch. It is the case of the petitioner that after assuming the office, he conducted the first meeting on 20-9-2010. It is his further case that on account of wrongful declaration of the election in favour of the 6th respondent, he was prevented from functioning as Sarpanch, therefore he lost four precious years. According to the petitioner, he should be allowed to function on an extended term up to 15-9-2015 as compensatory to the period lost on account of wrongful declaration of the election in favour of the 6th respondent. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 08-8-2011 to the said effect, which he seeks to be considered. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner after assuming the office conducted the first meeting on 16-9-2010, hence his term shall be reckoned from that date. 4. I am unable to appreciate the contention, firstly; the said contention has no legal basis. No statutory provision is brought to the notice of this Court whereby the authorities are empowered to extend the term of a Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, under Section 14(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), the term of office of the Sarpanch who is elected at an ordinary election shall be five years from the date appointed by the election authority for the first meeting of the gram panchayat after the ordinary election. This is, however, subject to any provision expressly provided or prescribed. There being no exception provided or any other term prescribed under the Rules as per the said provision, the term of office of the Sarpanch shall only be five years. 5. Further, a perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act unequivocally shows that the first meeting referred to therein relates to the meeting of the gram panchayat and the same does not relate to a meeting conducted by any individual Sarpanch. 6. Article 243E(1) of the Constitution of India, states that every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. 7. It is, therefore, evident that when the term of office of the Sarpanch is restricted to for a period of five years by the Statutory provision as well as the Constitutional mandate, the petitioner cannot seek extension of his term beyond the said period merely because he was not able to assume office of the Sarpanch because of the intervening litigation. 8. In the circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid legal and Constitutional provision, and having regard to the fact that even the authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the representation for extension, there is no duty cast upon them to consider the said application. 9. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.23611 of 2011 25th August, 2011. (Ak)