IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15395 of 2007 Between: Koniki Venkateswarlu, S/o.Kondaih, R/o.Binginapally (V), Singarayakonda (M), Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Govt of A.P, Hyd. 2 The Dist Panchayat Officer, Prakasam Dist at Ongole. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam Dist. 4 The Executive Authority/Panchayat Secretary, Binginapally G.P, Singarayakonda (M), Prakasam Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating any action to disqulify Koppolu Varalakshmi as Sarpanch of Binginapally G.P inspite of petitions representation dt.28-08-2006 as illegal,irregular,arbitrary,violative of the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1994,in Rules framed there under and oﬀends Article 14 of the constitutionb of india and consequently direct the respondents to initiate all necessary steps to disqualify her as Sarpanch in accordance with law and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15395 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a voter of Binginapally Gram Panchayat, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prasakam District. He claims to have made a representation to the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, the 2 nd respondent alleging that the Sarpanch of the Village by name Koppolu Varalakshmi had incurred disqualiﬁcation under Section 19 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It was alleged that the Sarpanch had given birth to a third child after lapse of one year after the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act came into force. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken upon his representation made to the third respondent except that he has issued a communication to the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, the 2 nd respondent herein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Basically, the writ petition cannot be entertained for non- joinder of necessary party. The petitioner seeks disqualiﬁcation of an elected Sarpanch but she was not made a party. Secondly, the petitioner had an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of approaching the Court of District Judge under Section 22 of the Act. The matters of this nature need examination of oral and documentary evidence and that it is only for a District Court to undertake such an exercise. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. No costs. __________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 30, 2008. Tsr To 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Govt of A.P, Hyd. 2 The Dist Panchayat Officer, Prakasam Dist at Ongole. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam Dist. 4 The Executive Authority/Panchayat Secretary, Binginapally G.P, Singarayakonda (M), Prakasam Dist. 5. Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two C.D. copies.