*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + Civil Revision Petition No.2680 of 2010 % Dated: 21-07-2010 # G. Janaki Ramudu … Petitioner VERSUS $ State of A.P. rep., by its District Collector, (Panchayat Raj Wing) Kurnool & another. … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.V. Raghuveer ^ Counsel for the respondents: ---- <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 2005 (1) ALD 181 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2680 of 2010 Between: G. Janaki Ramudu … Petitioner And State of A.P., rep., by its District Collector, (Panchayat Raj Wing), Kurnool & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V. Raghuveer This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2680 of 2010 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 07.06.2010 in I.A.No.652 of 2010 in E.O.P.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. I have heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one represented the respondents despite service of notices on them. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Amakathadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2006. One K. Krishna filed a complaint before respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) as he was having more than two children at the time of his election as Sarpanch. After holding an enquiry, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 and as the petitioner has refused to receive the same, respondent No.2 passed order dated 10.03.2010 holding that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act with immediate effect and keeping the Upa Sarpanch as in-charge of the office of the Sarpanch. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7040 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 29.03.2010, wherein the learned Judge relying on the judgment of this Court in N. Tirupathaiah vs. District Panchayat Officer, Nellore[1] held that the executive authority or the District Panchayat Officer has no power to disqualify the Sarpanch and that such power being vested in the District Court, order dated 10.03.2010 was directed to be treated as notice to the petitioner and liberty was given to him to approach the District Court under Section 22 of the Act. This Court also specifically observed that under Section 22(2) of the Act, the elected person is entitled to function as if he is not disqualified during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Court and that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit under this provision. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner raised the dispute in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, by filing E.O.P.No.23 of 2010. Along with the said O.P., the petitioner filed I.A.No.652 of 2010 to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to continue him as Sarpanch. The said I.A. having been dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge has committed a grievous error in dismissing the petitioner’s application by pre-judging the issue. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the reasons contained in the order passed by the District Judge. Sections 17 to 19 of the Act enumerated disqualifications for holding the office of Sarpanch. Under Section 20, subject to the provisions of Section 22, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he incurs all the disqualifications specified in Section 19. Under Section 22, 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 Sections 17, 18, 19 or 20, the executive authority has to give a notice to such member through the District Panchayat Officer and if such a member disputes the correctness of the allegations so made, he may or the executive authority at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner shall within a period of two months from the date of such intimation is given or doubt is entertained, as the case may be, apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area for a decision. Under Section 22(2) of the Act, pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or not disqualified. I n N. Tirupataiah (supra) this Court held that neither the executive authority nor the District Panchayat Officer is conferred with any power to determine the truth or validity of the complaint and straight away disqualify the elected member. Keeping in view this dictum, this Court permitted the petitioner to approach the District Court by treating order dated 10.03.2010 purporting to disqualify him as a notice for a decision by the District Court. Once a dispute is raised before the District Court by the elected member of the Gram Panchayat, he is entitled to continue as such as if he has not incurred any disqualification, till the dispute is adjudicated by the District Court. In my opinion, there was no need for the petitioner to file I.A.No.652 of 2010 at all because his right to continue as Sarpanch flows from the statutory mandate under the abovementioned provision and there is no need for a direction to be given by the Court before which the dispute is pending for his continuance. Be that as it may, when the petitioner has filed the said I.A., the District Court ought to have considered the same under the provisions of Section 22(2) and permitted the petitioner to continue as Sarpanch till a decision is taken by it. Unfortunately, the District Court failed to consider either the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.7040 of 2010 or the provisions of Section 22 from proper perspective. Instead, it has embarked on the merits of the petition and declined the relief. Having carefully examined the impugned order and the legal position referred to above, I am satisfied that the order of the District Court cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall continue as Sarpanch till the District Court decides the dispute pending before it. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the revision petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP.No.3598 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in (3) days. B/o. ES L.R. Copies to be marked. [1] 2005 (1) ALD 181