HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.13720 of 2009 Tuesday the 25th day of August 2009 Between: B. Sanjeeva Reddy @ Jeeva. … Petitioner And 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna District At Machillipatnam and 3 others. … Respondents. * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.13720 of 2009 ORDER: Heard party-in-person-petitioner-B. Sanjeeva Reddy @ Jeeva, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, representing respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept the resignation dated 26.2.2009 of the third respondent in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. The party-in-person had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the counter- affidavit filed by the first respondent and further had drawn the attention of this Court to certain of the orders made by this Court on the docket and would further maintain that the third respondent though served, is not responding and not appearing before this Court for the reason that the third respondent is interested in playing delaying tactics in collusion with the other respondents and, hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the writ petition to be allowed and suitable directions to be given in this regard. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and also Sri M. Prabhakar Rao had taken this Court through the relevant rules and also the counter-affidavit filed and would maintain that in the light of the same, since the resignation was not given to the competent authority, the official respondents are unable to do anything in this regard. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. This Court ordered notice before admission on 10.7.2009. On 23.7.2009 this Court made the following order. “Even though notice is served on the 3rd respondent, as per the memo filed by the petitioner, none appears for the 3rd respondent. Hence, print the name of the 3rd respondent in the cause list and post tomorrow.” 7. On 24.7.2009 this Court made the following order: “It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent that the competent authority to accept the resignation of the third respondent is the second respondent-District Collector, Krishna District. But the third respondent has submitted his resignation to the first respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna District, instead of the second respondent. The first respondent in turn has forwarded the same to the second respondent for further action and the second respondent has issued notice to the third respondent to appear before him personally. But so far, the third respondent has not appeared. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file counter-affidavit. Even though notice is served on the third respondent, none appears for him. Hence, Registry is directed to serve notice on the third respondent. List the matter after one week.” 8. On 03.8.2009 this Court further directed the office to comply with the direction issued by the Court on 24.7.2009 to the effect that the Registry to serve notice on the third respondent. It is stated that the third respondent had been served and despite the same, none represents the third respondent. 9. The petitioner is the voter in the Z.P.T.C. area, Pamarru and the petitioner also participated in the recent Assembly elections from Srisailam constituency, Kurnool District, as such the petitioner is entitled to file the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition challenging the position of the third respondent in the Z.P.T.C. 10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third respondent got himself elected as Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency, Pamarru for Krishna District. It is also stated that he had committed all sorts of wrongs in filing nomination papers including owing dues to the market yard and commercial taxes. The petitioner earlier exposed such things to various authorities, but the same was of no consequence. Further it is stated that the third respondent changed the party from Telugu Desam Z.P.T.C. to Prajarajyam and became Krishna District rural convener in the month of February and submitted his resignation to the post of Z.P.T.C. Pamarru on 26.2.2009. It is also stated that the said resignation letter was sent to the first respondent, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam, though the third respondent was fully aware of the fact that resignation should be given to the District Collector i.e., the second respondent, as per the rules. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is playing drama by making mockery of the democracy. In the light of the said drama, the petitioner collected the material under the Right to Information Act and began submitting representations to all the official respondents to take action by accepting the said resignation. But, no action had been taken in this regard so far. Respondent No.4 had given a direction to respondent No.2 to take action by accepting resignation on 06.6.2009. The order dated 06.6.2009 was communicated to the second respondent, but so far no action had been taken in this regard, except calling the third respondent to attend the Zilla Parishad meetings. Specific allegation had been made that the official respondents are colluding with the third respondent. It is also further stated that continuation of third respondent as Z.P.T.C. Pamarru, in spite of his resignation is against the principles of democracy. 11. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is averred that Arepally Nagaramesh addressed a fax letter to Zilla Parishad, Krishna on 28.02.2009 stating that he resigned to his ZPTC membership of Pamarru Mandal on personal reasons. It is also stated that as per the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act under Section 157 of Part-III, the resignation of any ZPTC member should be submitted in person before the District Collector. But contrary to that, respondent No.3 Arepally Naga Ramesh, submitted his resignation letter through fax on 28.02.2009 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the respondents had not taken any action for accepting the resignation of Arepally Naga Ramesh is absolutely false and misleading. 12. It is also averred that the State Election commission had given direction to the second respondent i.e., District Collector, Krishna to take action by accepting the resignation dated 06.6.2009 and so far they had not taken any action and colluded with Arepally Naga Ramesh to protect his ZPTC membership is absolutely false and incorrect. As a matter of fact, the State Election Commission by its letter No.578/SEC-B1/2009, dated 6.6.2009, stated that the defection of a ZPTC member from one party to another is not a ground for disqualification. The District Collector, Krishna is competent to accept resignation of ZPTC membership and also directed to give suitable reply to the petitioner. The Zilla Parishad is unable to accept the resignation of Arepally Naga Ramesh, ZPTC member, Pamarru Mandal and the same had been informed to the said ZPTC member, vide office letter dated 09.3.2009. Respondent No.3, Arepally Naga Ramesh, ZPTC member shall submit his resignation to the District Collector, then only action would be taken as per rules. 13. Section 157 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, deals with resignation of President, Vice-President or Member and the said Section corresponds to Section 18 of A.P. Mandala Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads, Zilla Pranalika and Abhivrudhi Sameeksha Mandals Act, 1986. The said provisions specify that the President, Vice-President elected member or co-opted member may resign his office in such manner as may be prescribed. 14. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 268 read with sub-section (1) of Section 23 and Sections 157 and 185 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh made the rules relating to resignation of Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch, or Member of Gram Panchayat, President, Vide- President and an elected member, or Co-opted Member of Mandal Parishad and Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and an elected Member or Co-opted member of Zilla Parishad by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.217, P.R.R.D. & Relief (Mdll-II) Dept., dt.31.3.1995 and Part-III specifies that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, an elected Member or Co-opted Member specified in sub-section (3) of Section 177, may resign his office, as such, Chairman, Vice-Chairman or elected Member or Co- opted Member by giving notice in writing to the District Collector. Except in a case where the person resigning delivers the notice of resignation personally to the District Collector, the District Collector shall, on receipt of a notice of resignation, obtain confirmation from the person concerned as to its genuineness. A resignation delivered personally or confirmed as aforesaid shall take effect on and from the date on which the notice was received. 15. Section 177 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, falling under Part-IV, deals with Constitution, incorporation and Composition of Zilla Parishad. Part-I of the aforesaid rules deals with resignation of Members, Upa-Sarpanch or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats. Likewise, Part-II deals with resignation of President, Vice-President, an Elected Member or Co-opted Member or Mandal Parishad. 16. Serious allegation of collusion had been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. When a procedure is prescribed for submitting resignation and acceptance thereof, the competent authority is expected to follow the said procedure. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in fact the State Election Commission by its letter No.578/SEC-B1/2009, dated 06.6.2009, stated that the defection of a ZPTC member from one party to another is not a ground for disqualification and further stated that the District Collector, Krishna, is competent to accept the resignation of ZPTC Member and also directed to give suitable reply to the petitioner. 17. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit and also in the light of the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Rules referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no positive direction by issuance of writ of Mandamus to accept the resignation as such can be given by this Court. But however, in the peculiar fact situation, let the second respondent consider this aspect in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, if necessary, after putting the petitioner and the third respondent on notice in this regard and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: August 25th, 2009. BSB