THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18387 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein who claims to be a permanent resident of Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, ﬁled the present writ petition with the following prayer: “..a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon the 6th respondent herein as to under what authority he is holding the post of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to declare that the 6th Respondent's holding the post of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is contrary to Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by declaring that he is qualiﬁed to hold the oﬃce of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct the Respondent No.6 not to act as "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to pass……………..” In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition it is alleged that the 6th respondent herein who was elected as Sarpach, Podduru Village Panchayat in the election held on 29.07.2006 suﬀered a disqualiﬁcation under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) since he is having more than two children even on the date of election notiﬁcation and as such he is not entitled to continue in the oﬃce of Sarpanch. Hence, a writ of Quo Warranto is sought declaring that the 6th respondent is disqualiﬁed to hold the oﬃce of Sarpanch and, consequently, direct him not to act as Sarpanch. It is true that as per Section 19(3) of the Act a person having more than two children shall be disqualiﬁed for election or continuing as member of the Gram Panchayat. As per Section 22 of the Act where an allegation is made that any person who is elected as a member of a Gram Panchayat is not qualiﬁed or has become disqualiﬁed under Section 19 of the Act and the same is intimated to such member by the executive authority through the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, if he disputes the correctness of the allegation, such member or any other member may, and the executive authority, at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner shall apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the oﬃce of the Gram Panchayat is situated for decision. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 further made it clear that pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or were not disqualified. Having interpreted the scope and object of Section 22 of the Act, read with Sections 17 to 20, a Division Bench of this Court i n Chava Rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu and another[1], 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. After considering in detail the scope of Section 22 of the Act, it was explained by the Division Bench as under: “………..There may be a case in which a member may himself entertain a doubt that whether or not he has become disqualiﬁed under any of the provisions contained under Sections 17 to 20 of the Act. Even in that case, section 22 enables him to apply to District Judge for a decision within a period of two months from the date of entertaining such doubt. In case the submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.2 are to be accepted, it would result in absurdity. Suppose a member or Sarpanch himself entertains a doubt about his qualiﬁcation or having incurred disqualiﬁcation and within a period of two months from the date of entertaining such doubt, he fails to seek any decision from District Judge, the result in such a case would be that he would cease to be a member or Sarpanch. In our considered opinion, such an absurd result could not be the legislative intent. Entertaining a doubt is a state of mind, not known to any other person. How such state of mind of a person would lead to such disastrous result on his failure to seek adjudication? ……..” In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the above decision, it cannot be held that the 6th respondent is disqualiﬁed to hold the oﬃce of Sarpanch in the absence of a decision by the District court having jurisdiction over the area. Hence, the writ of Quo Warranto as prayed for cannot be issued. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Kurapati Maria Das v. M/s Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajam[2], in which a Division Bench of this Court held that a writ of Quo Warranto being a Constitutional remedy can be availed notwithstanding the alternative remedy, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly in view of the statutory provisions governing the disqualiﬁcation alleged against the 6th respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 26.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18387 of 2008 Between: Talla Maheshwar Reddy S/o. Talla Narasimha Reddy, R/o. H.No.1-38, Pudur Village, Medhcal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4 District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 5 State Election Commission, rep. by its Secretary. 6 Nallabapani Narasimha Reddy, S/o. N. Chandra Reddy R/o. H.No.4-98/1, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 any writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon the 6th respondent herein as to under what authority he is holding the post of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to declare that the 6th Respondent's holding the post of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is contrary to Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by declaring that he is qualiﬁed to hold the oﬃce of "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct the Respondent No.6 not to act as "Sarpanch", Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: [1] 2004(1) ALD 54 (DB) [2] AIR 2007 AP 330.