THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22914 of 2009 Date: 07.09.2010 Between: Kavvampally Satyanarayana. ..... Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Ravinder Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri G. Elisha standing counsel for Zilla Parishads and Mandal Parishads-Telangana Area Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 6: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the issue involved. This writ petition is filed for a Prohibition to prohibit respondent No.6 from trying and passing orders in O.P.No.543 of 2009 instituted by respondent No.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency of Thimmapur Mandal of Karimnagar District falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Subordinate Judge of Karimnagar. Respondent No.2 filed an election O.P. registered as O.P.No.543 of 2009 before respondent No.6 who is of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and he has entertained the said O.P. and started proceeding with the trial. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In support of his plea that respondent No.6 inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain election O.P. and adjudicate the same, the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’) which reads as under: “Section 2 (2) The Election Tribunal shall be, (b) the Subordinate Judge or if there is more than one Subordinate Judge at the headquarters, having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad as the case may be, is located, in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of President, Vice-President and members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies. Explanation: For purposes of these Rules, the expressions “Subordinate Judge” and “District Munsiff” shall in relation to the Scheduled Areas mean the Agency Divisional Officer.” From the above reproduced provision, it is manifest that it is only the Subordinate Judge, within whose jurisdiction the office of Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad is located, that has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide an election dispute. Respondent No.6 is higher in rank than the Subordinate Judge (since designated as Senior Civil Judge). As the Rule has designated the adjudicating authority by office, it is not possible for respondent No.6 who is of the rank of an Additional District Judge to exercise the powers and functions of the Subordinate Judge. Neither Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel representing respondent No.1 nor Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 is able to invite my attention to any legal provision under which respondent No.6 is empowered to exercise the powers and functions of the Senior Civil Judge. Therefore, respondent No.6 inherently lacks jurisdiction to decide the election dispute. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.6 is prohibited from proceeding with O.P.No.543 of 2009. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 from taking appropriate measures in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 30.10.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.29752 of 2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.29752 and 30876 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.4454 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th September, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN