IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14540 of 2009 Between: Yadala Deva Deevana Kumari W/o Satish Chandra Satlin Sarpanch of Jegurapadu(V) Jegurupadu(V) Kadiyam(M) E.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Election Tribunal Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge Rajahmundry East Godavari District 2 Gangaraju Chandra Sekhar S/o Venkata Krishna Rao Jegurupadu(V) Kadiyam(M) E.G District 3 R.V Jogiraju Assistant Director of Ground Water Dept Rajahmundry Election Officer for The Conduct of Election of G.P Jegurupadu,Rajahmundry,E.G District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying pthat in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or orders specially one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 6-4-2009 in I A No 2040 of 2007 in E.O.P No.10 of 2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal and contrary to Section 22 of the A.P Panchayat Raj Act 1995 and the provisions of A.P(S.C.ST.and B.C) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 also the Law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and consequently set aside the order of the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.JAGGI REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. G. VASANTHA RAYUDU . The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 06.04.2009, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, dismissing the application in I.A.No.2040 of 2007 in E.O.P.No.10 of 2006, filed by the petitioner praying to decide the issue involved in the main E.O.P. as preliminary issue for deciding its very maintainability. Respondent No.2 herein filed E.O.P. on the file of respondent No.1, questioning the election of the petitioner herein as Sarpanch of Jegurupadu Gram Panchayat, contending that the post to which the petitioner was elected is reserved for BC-C category, while the petitioner belongs to SC category, and her subsequent conversion to BC-C category, does not make her election to the said post legal, and so contending he prayed that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch be declared as null and void. In support of her contentions, the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Andugula Vijaya Lakshmi, Varahapatnam, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District v. District Collector, Krishna[1] and P. Aruna Devi v. Election Authority- cum-Commissioner, Adoni Municipality[2]. The petitioner filed her written statements to the E.O.P., and filed the present application in E.O.P. praying to decide the principal issue involved in the main E.O.P. as preliminary issue for deciding the maintainability of the very E.O.P. Respondent No.2 contested the application by filing counter inter alia stating that the law governing elections, does not entitle deciding the issues involved in the E.O.P. piecemeal, but have to be decided finally. Respondent No.1 upon hearing the rival contentions, while observing that the petitioner can take the assistance of the judgments of this Court at appropriate time, and while holding that there are no legitimate reasons for entertaining the application, dismissed the application by reason of the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide the communal status of the petitioner, and therefore, the question as to whether respondent No.1 has the power to decide the communal status of the petitioner as preliminary issue so as to decide the very maintainability of the main E.O.P. cannot be accepted because the respondent No.1 is competent to decide the question whether the petitioner belongs to SC category of BC-C category for which category, the post of Sarpanch is reserved, after conducting full-fledged trial. Without conducting trial, the issue raised by the petitioner cannot be directed to be decided as a preliminary issue, particularly, when the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to SC category of BC-C category, is a disputed question of fact, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to frame the issue raised by the petitioner as preliminary issue so as to decide the very maintainability of the E.O.P. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, respondent No.1 is directed to expedite the hearing of the E.O.P. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date:22.07.2009 sj [1] 2003(1) ALT 738 [2] 2003(1) ALT 583