G JANAKI RAMUDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 07.06.2010 in I.A. No. 652 of 2010 in E.O.P. No. 23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

(2.) I have heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one represented the respondents despite service of notices on them.

(3.) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Amakathadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2006. One K. Krishna filed a complaint before respondent No. 2 stating that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") as he was having more than two children at the time of his election as Sarpanch. After holding an enquiry, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 2 and as the petitioner has refused to receive the same, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 10.03.2010 holding that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act with immediate effect and keeping the Upa Sarpanch as in-charge of the office of the Sarpanch. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7040 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 29.03.2010, wherein the learned Judge relying on the judgment of this Court in N. Tirupathaiah v. District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, 2005 1 ALD 181 held that the executive authority or the District Panchayat Officer has no power to disqualify the Sarpanch and that such power being vested in the District Court, order dated 10.03.2010 was directed to be treated as notice to the petitioner and liberty was given to him to approach the District Court under Section 22 of the Act. This Court also specifically observed that under Section 22(2) of the Act, the elected person is entitled to function as if he is not disqualified during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Court and that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit under this provision. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner raised the dispute in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, by filing E.O.P. No. 23 of 2010. Along with the said O.P., the petitioner filed I.A. No. 652 of 2010 to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to continue him as Sarpanch. The said I.A. having been dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.