THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.3065 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Member to the Municipal Council, Nirmal, in the elections held in November, 2005. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted a complaint before the Commissioner of Municipality, alleging that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 13-B of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), on account of her having more children, than two, by the notified date. Acting on the same, the Commissioner instituted proceedings before the Court of District Judge, Adilabad, under Section 17 of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.856 of 2007, under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner opposed the same. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 20-04-2009. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 have no locus standi, either to institute proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, or to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings. According to him, if the respondents 1 and 2 intended to challenge the election of the petitioner, they ought to have filed election O.P., before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, and since they did not take such steps, they are not entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings, instituted under Section 17 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sonti Srinivasa Rao v. Boina Lakshmi Narayana and others[1]. In the judgment, referred to above, this Court had explained the distinction between the proceedings instituted under Section 17, on the one hand, and election petition, in accordance with the Rules, framed under Section 326 of the Act, on the other hand. It was also mentioned that complainant by himself cannot approach the District Court, for adjudication under Section 17 of the Act. Nowhere in that judgment it was mentioned that, a complainant cannot get himself impleaded in the proceedings, which are instituted validly. The petitioner does not dispute that the proceedings were validly instituted by the Commissioner, under Section 17 of the Act. The root cause for the institution of proceedings is the application submitted by the respondents 1 and 2. They answer the description of proper parties, though not necessary parties. Their presence will certainly be helpful to the Court, in examining the issue, before it. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-08-2009. KO [1] 2006 (5) ALT 825