IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12522 of 2005 Between: 1 Chinna Pullaiah S/o Laxmaiah 7th Ward Member, Achampet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 2 Smt. S. Umarani W/o Srinivas, 17th Ward Member, Achampet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Achampet Major Gram Panchayat Mahabubnagar District, rep by its Panchayat Secretary 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Manabubnagar District Mahabubnagar .....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 a writ order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not intimating the order of restoration of the petitioners as ward Members of the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat even though Sec 21(2) A.P.Panchayat Raj Act mandates the same and further action of the 1st respondent in not sending the agenda notice and not allowing the petitioners to attend the Gram Panchayat meetings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to intimate the above said orders of restoration to the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat forthwith with a further direction tot he 1st respondent Gram Panchayat forthwith with a further direction to the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat to give agenda notice and allow the petitioner to attend the meetings of Gram Panchayat to give agenda notice and allow the petitioners to attend the meetings of Gram Panchayat to exercise their power as Ward Members and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BEERAMHARSHA VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Gram Panchayat in issuing proceedings No. A7/66/2005 dated 04-03-2005 under Section 20(b) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners are the elected Ward Members of the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat, Achampet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is asserted that the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar issued a show cause notices to the petitioners under Section 20(b) of the Act disqualifying them for the post of Ward Members on the ground that they have not attended three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. In response to the said show cause notices, the petitioners submitted detailed explanation dated 05-02-2005 stating that due to ill-health they could not attend the three consecutive meetings. However, the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, without considering their explanation to the show cause notice, issued impugned proceeding disqualifying the petitioners as Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the petitioners made individual representations dated 18-03-2005 under Section 21(2) of the Act for restoration of their membership. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they made individual representations to the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, within the time stipulated as per the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent without considering their representations did not allow them to participate in the meeting held on 05-05-2005. Hence the present writ petition has been filed. Heard both sides. I have perused the material available on record. The short question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the defence set up by the petitioners basing upon the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Act is a valid defence? While dealing with the above question, it would appropriate to refer Section 21(2) of the Act as under: Section 21(2) : Where a person incurs the disqualification specified under clause (b) of Section 20, the executive authority shall forthwith send a report in that regard to the District Panchayat Officer concerned, who shall, on satisfying himself after due verification, that the person has ex-facie ceased to be a member, intimate that fact by registered post to the member concerned and report the same to the Gram Panchayat forthwith. If such member applies for restoration of his membership to the Gram Panchayat within thirty days of the receipt by him of such intimation, he shall be deemed to have been restored to his membership and the executive authority shall report the fact of such restoration to the Gram Panchayat at its next meeting: Provided that a member who is so restored to his membership again incurs the disqualification under the said clause (b), the Gram Panchayat may, on his application for restoration filed within a period of thirty days of the receipt by him of the intimation from the District Panchayat Officer regarding the disqualification, restore him to his membership. The provisions of the Act mandate that if any member applies for restoration of his membership to the Gram Panchayat within thirty days of the receipt by him of such intimation, he shall be deemed to have been restored to his membership and the executive authority shall report the fact of such restoration to the Gram Panchayat at its next meeting. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners gave individual representation for restoration of their membership within 30 days (i.e. the date of disqualification is 04-03-2005 and the representations are dated 18-03-2005). According to the petitioners, when they questioned the 1st respondent- Panchayat Secretary for not calling them to the meeting held on 05-05-2005, he issued proceedings in File No.248/2004 dated 05-05-2005 stating that the applications submitted by the them for restoration were forwarded to the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, and so far no orders of restoration have been received and hence they did not call them for the meeting. The said reason offered by the respondents is not just and reasonable. Therefore, it would suffice to say that the respondents could not have justified to such an action where there exits the mandatory provisions of the act enabling them to restore the petitioners as Ward Members within 30 days from the date of receipt of representations. For the reasons best known to them, the respondents did not choose to do so. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the provisions of the Act, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer is directed to consider the representations dated 18-03-2005 given by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the 1st respondent-Major Gram Panchayat, Achampet, who in turn take necessary steps in his regard. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ 15-06-2005 Mjl/* To, 1 The Achampet Major Gram Panchayat Mahabubnagar District, rep by its Panchayat Secretary 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Manabubnagar District Mahabubnagar 3. 2 CCs to G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 4. 2 CD copies.