IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4563 of 2011 Between: Nakka Narayana ..... Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Srikantha Rao for Sri C. Ramesh Sagar Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4563 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, in proceeding with O.P.No.748 of 2009, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was elected as Member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (for short, ‘ZPTC’), Gollapalli, Karimnagar District. On representation dated 12.04.2007 given by respondent No.2 to the District Collector, Karimnagar, alleging that on the date of filing of nomination by the petitioner, the latter was disqualified to be elected as Member for having three children, the District Collector, Karimnagar, passed order on 28.06.2008 disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as ZPTC Member. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21667 of 2008. This Court, by order dated 30.09.2008, allowed the said Writ Petition holding that Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) prescribes a detailed procedure for disqualifying the persons on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 19 of the Act and that the District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate such disputes. On that premise, while setting aside the order of the District Collector, this Court left it open to the concerned authorities to take necessary steps under Section 22 of the Act. Following the said order, the matter was referred to the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, under Section 22 of the Act, which was taken on file as O.P.No.748 of 2009. The main plea on which the present Writ Petition is filed is that as per the rules notified under G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 03.03.1995, the District Munsiff concerned and if there are more than one District Munsiff, the Principal District Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the office of Gram Panchayat is located is competent to decide the election disputes relating to Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat and that in respect of the dispute relating to the office of Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, it is the subordinate Judge, who is competent to decide such dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue relating to his disqualification pertains to an election dispute and therefore the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. In my opinion, this plea of the petitioner is specious and the same lacks bona fides. When the District Collector has disqualified him, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21667 of 2008, as noted above, which was allowed by this Court with the following observations: “Section 19 of the Act prescribes the circumstances, under which the members of the concerned local body incur disqualification. Section 22 of the Act prescribes a detailed procedure to be followed, before a member can be held to be disqualified. The District Court is conferred with the power to adjudicate such matters. Not only the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned institution, but also the effected persons, are conferred with the right to approach the Court, for adjudication. Irrespective of the manner in which the proceedings are instituted, it is ultimately for the Court to decide whether or not an individual has incurred disqualification. No other authority is conferred with the power to declare that a member had incurred disqualification. The District Collector does not figure any where in the entire scheme. Therefore, the impugned order is obviously without jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the concerned authorities to take necessary steps, in accordance with Section 22 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.” Having thus taken the benefit from the order of this Court by getting the District Collector’s order disqualifying him set aside, the petitioner has made a volte-face and raised a plea which runs contrary to the above findings of this Court. The petitioner has not questioned the said findings in any subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the order of this Court, which attained finality, is binding on the petitioner and he is not entitled to approbate and reprobate. This Writ Petition is filed obviously to drag on the proceedings pending before the District Court. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly meritless and the same is dismissed. As the petitioner has indulged in speculative and vexatious litigation, he is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today. If the costs are not paid, the legal service authority shall recover the same through execution proceedings. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.5647 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2011 ES Note:- Furnish a copy of this order to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority.