IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 75 OF 2009 AGAINST WRIT PETITION No. 23854 OF 2008 Between: Nalla Satyanarayana, s/o. Surapunaidu, Aged about 37 years, r/o. Kannampeta village, Kannampeta Gram Panchayath Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram district. … Appellant- Respondent No.1 VERSUS Smt. Balaga Savithramma, w/o. Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 38 years, Sarpanch of Kannampeta Gram Panchayat, Kannampeta village, … Respondent-Writ Petitioner Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram district and 3-Ors. ….Respondents- Respondents 2 to 4 (R4 not necessary party) Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Taddi Nageswar Rao Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi Sri M. Rama Rao THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 7 5 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari). This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the common order dated 31.12.2008 made in W.P.No. 23854 of 2008 allowing the WP.Nos. 23854 and 24267 of 2008 holding that petitioner did not incur disqualification for the office of Sarpanch under Sec. 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, by giving birth to twins after the first issue. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that elections to the Gram Panchayat of Kannampet, Vizianagaram District were held on 29.07.2006. The petitioner and the wife of 1st respondent, by name, Bharathi, filed nominations for the office of Sarpanch. The said Bharathi raised an objection for the nomination of the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for brevity ‘the Act’), inasmuch as she had three living children, out of whom, two were born after 31-05-1995, which was overruled by the Returning Officer, accepting her nomination. The petitioner was declared elected. Subsequent to her election, the first respondent submitted a representation dated 31-08-2006 to the second respondent stating that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act, and requested him to take necessary steps and also filed Election O.P.No.689 of 2007 before the fourth respondent under Section 22 of the Act, with a prayer to disqualify the petitioner. On coming to know of the same the petitioner sought the relief to declare that she did not incur any disqualification in E.O.P.No.217 of 2008 before the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent after clubbing both the O.Ps by a common judgment dated 03-10-2008, held that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act and is not entitled to continue as Sarpanch. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23854 of 2008 against the said judgment. 4. The learned Single Judge, on extensive consideration of the submissions made by both the counsel, allowing the writ petition as stated supra. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent in the writ petition preferred the present writ Appeal. 6. Though several grounds are sought to be urged, we are not inclined to advert to the same as we proposed to allow the writ appeal not on merits but on the aspect of non-consideration of the I.A. filed before the fourth respondent by the petitioner on 23.6.2008 seeking to reopen the matter for adducing additional evidence. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave birth to a male child in the year 1991 and she gave birth to twins in the month of September, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted representation before the Government seeking exemption in terms of Sec. 19(3) of the Act in view of Circular Letter No. 151/SEC/12/2/2006 dated 9.7.2006 and also obtained copy of the proceedings from the Government, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department in Memo No. 13172/Elec.&Rules/A.2/2008-1 dated 5.6.2008 and Memo No. 6884/CPR & RE/D1/2008 dated 11.6.2008. These deeds of the petitioner applying for exemption are denied by the respondent and, as such, the petitioner sought to file these documents before the fourth respondent. Though the learned Election Tribunal – fourth respondent, has adverted to the issue of seeking exemption, it is merely held that she has applied for exemption after her election and the said exemption is pending before the Government. Of course, the said representation of the petitioner culminated into issuance of GO Ms. No.1151 Panchayath Raj & Rural Development (Elec. & Rules) Department dated 30.7.2008. In such circumstances, the learned District Judge-cum-Authority under the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, Vizianagaram ought to have either rejected or allowed the I.A. filed by the petitioner seeking to reopen the case and adduce additional evidence. The common order dated 3.10.2008 passed in EOP No. 689 of 2007 and EOP No. 217 of 2008 is conspicuously silent about the disposal of the said I.A. The said aspect was neither canvassed nor adverted to by the learned District Judge-cum-Authority under the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, inasmuch as the common order dated 3.10.2008 made in EOP No. 689 of 2007 and 217 of 2008 is conspicuously silent about the I.A. filed by the first respondent herein. As stated earlier, the representation of the first respondent before the Government to exempt her from disqualification, as Sarpanch, for having given birth to twins on 6.9.1996 i.e. after the commencement of A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 with effect from 30.5.1995, has culminated into issuance of GO Ms. No.1151 dated 30.7.2008, yet the effect of filing the I.A. on the result of the EOPs is not spoken to by the fourth respondent, whether it enures to the benefit of the petitioner or the first respondent. In such circumstances, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised in this appeal, we allow the appeal and remand the matter back to the fourth respondent for disposal afresh not only of the EOPs but also the I.A. filed therein, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further needless to observe that the first respondent is at liberty to assail the correctness or otherwise of G.O. Ms.No. 1151 Panchayath Raj and Rural Development (Elec. & Rules) Department dated 30.7.2008, before appropriate forum. 8. With the above observation and without going into merits, the writ appeal is allowed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 18-06-2009. I s L