IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 18181 OF 2008 Between: Rekala Vasantha W/o Ramulu ..... Petitioner AND Surarapu Jyothi @ Macherla Srilatha and five others .....Respondents ORDER: I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides on record. This Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to O.P.No. 08 of 2006 dated 12.6.2008 on the file of the Election Tribunal –cum-Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and consequently, petitioner be declared as Sarpanch of Madharam Kalan Village of Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, and to grant such other relief or reliefs a this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is the case of the petitioner that election to the office of Madharam Kalan Gram Panchayat was held on 2.8.2006 pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent authorities as per the direction of the State Election Commission. It is also the case of the petitioner that she filed nomination within the stipulated time and the first respondent also filed her nomination for the post of Sarpanch. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the first respondent as on the date of filing of the nomination was 18 years, her date of birth being 20.2.1988 and the candidates contesting for the post of Sarpanch should have completed 21 years as on the date of notification 14.7.2006, and therefore, the first respondent is disqualified. It is also the case of the petitioner that this aspect was brought to the notice of the Election Officer Stage-I, who verified the same, but however, the objection raised by her had been ignored. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed OP No. 8 of 2006 on the file of Election Tribunal/Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal (for short “the Tribunal) and the Tribunal recorded evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and marked Exs. A1 and A2 and Exs. B1 to B6 and especially in the light of Ex. B1, date of birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mothkur, came to the conclusion that the stand taken by the Writ Petitioner cannot be said to be sustainable stand and ultimately dismissed the OP. It is stated that I.A No. 66 of 2007 in O.P.No. 8 of 2006 had been filed to call for the records from the office of the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and it appears that the said application was dismissed. But, however, the said order was not challenged. The learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner would comment that in the light of the voluminous evidence placed before the Tribunal, mere observing that the date of birth certificate of the first respondent Ex. B-1, would prevail over age certificate produced by the petitioner, is a wrong approach and the said finding cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the judgments reported in UMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[1], STATE OF CHHATTISGARAH VS. LEKHRAM[2], RAGHUNATH BEHERI VS. BALARAM BEHERA AND ANOTHR[3], DESH RAJ V. BODH RAJ[4], CHIRALA GOVERDHANA REDDY VS. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT (W.P.NO.S 1522 AND 1684 OF 1964 DATED 27.12.1967) ,PEEDIKA RAJANNA DORA VS. RAJENDRA PRATHAP BHANJ DEO ( ELECTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2004) and NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU VS. SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU (ELECTION PETITION NO. 13 OF 1999). On the contrary, the leaned counsel representing the first respondent relied on provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and relevant Rules, and would maintain that inasmuch as the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent and the said certificate to be taken as binding and in the light of the same, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also incidentally had relied on the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and rules made thereunder. No doubt in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also in the counter, several further facts have been narrated. But it is needless to say that this Writ Petition has been filed for writ of Certiorari and this court is expected to go into the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the present Writ Petition. This Court had also carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and this court is thoroughly satisfied that for the reasons best known both the parties had not adduced sufficient evidence except relying on certain documents and except examining the parties themselves as PW-1 and RW-1. Having taken steps, the writ petitioner also had not taken any further steps to summon the relevant records to establish the age of the first respondent in accordance with law. May be, for the reason that the Writ Petitioner might have thought that the records produced and evidence available on record may be sufficient. In the light of the several decisions, which had been relied on and also the provisions of law, which had been referred to by the counsel in the course of arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case, where the order under challenge be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal again to afford an opportunity to all the contesting parties to let in further evidence and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the interlocutory order made by the Tribunal would not come in the way of the parties and liberty is given to the respective parties to move further appropriate applications for summoning of further records, if the parties are so advised. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in accordance with. Let the Tribunal decide matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA,J DATE: 24.11.2009. KA Note: Furnish copy in three days. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] (1982) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 202 [2] AIR 2006 SC 1746 [3] AIR 1996 ORISSA 38 [4] AIR 2008 SC 632