IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 10528 of 2008 Between: Gadipe Prabhakar S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Salakpur Village, Maddur Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal. 2 Chief Executive Officer, Zillaparishad, Warangal. 3 Shingi Reddy Bixapathi S/o.Chandraiah R/o.Salakpur village, Maddur Mandal, Warangal District. .....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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 not taking any action against the respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and consequent by direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against the respondent No.3 as per the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action against the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that the 3rd respondent was elected as M.P.T.C. Member of Salakpur village in the year 2006, by which time, C.C.No.488 of 2002 was pending against him for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. Ultimately, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,Jangoan convicted him of the charged offence and his conviction was also confirmed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. Later, the petitioner made a representation dated 7.1.2008 requesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against the 3rd respondent as he is not eligible to contest as a Member of M.P.T.C. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the 3rd respondent was convicted by the trial Court and his conviction was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action against him. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s representation is pending before the 1st and 2nd respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-District Collector and the 2nd respondent-Chief Executive Officer to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, but before passing any orders, they may afford an opportunity to the 3rd respondent of being heard. This exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from today. As it is only a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, the usual notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 02.05.2008 bcj