J SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the District Munsif Narayanpet from proceeding further in O. P. No. 13 of 1970 and to quash the order passed by him in LA. No. 85/70. The brief facts leading to this writ petition may be stated : The petitioner who has been elected as Sarpanch of Jaklair Gram Panchayat, is contesting for the presidentship of Panchayat Samithi Makthal. The 2nd respondent has been elected as Sarpanch of Warkur Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that he is disqualified under Section 9 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parisbads Act (No. 35 of 59) (Hereinafter called "the Act") to be a member of the Panchayat Samithi Makthal on the ground that he has a subsisting contract with the Panchayat Samithi, Makthal in respect of a school building at Maganur. The 3rd respondent, who has been appointed to conduct the elections for the members of Co-option under Section 4 (1) (v) of the Act and for the President as well as Vice President of the Samithi under Section 7, has required the Block Development Officer of Makthal Panchayat Samithi to supply him with a list of qualified members of the Panchayat Samithi. On the application filed by the petitioner, the Block Development Officer, Makthal Panchayat Samithi, by his order dt. 3-7-70, is alleged to have held after enquiry that the 2nd respondent cannot become a member of the Panchayat Samithi and hence is not entitled to vote in the ensuing elections of the Samithi scheduled to take place on 18-7-70. Thereupon, 0. P. No. 13/70 before the District Munsif, Nafayanpet under Section 11 (1) of the Act was filed by the 2nd respondent making the Block Development Officer, as a party respondent, for declaration that he is a member of the Panchayat Samithi, Makthal. On coming to know of the aforesaid O P. being filed by the 2nd respondent I. A. No. 85/70 to dismiss the O. P. on the ground that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the same was filed by the petitioner. , The Election Court by its order dr. 7-7-70 held that it has jurisdiction under Section 11 (1) of the Act to entertain the application and dismissed the I. A. No 85/70. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Sri Ayyapa Reddy, for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the 0. P. No 13/1970 filed by the 2nd respondent as he is disqualified under Section 9 (d) but not under Section 10 of the Act; In other words, the Dis- trict Munsif has jurisdiction to decide questions of disqualifications of members only when a person has ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samithi under Section 10, which according to him, applies only to persons who are validly elected and subsequently disqualified for any of the reasons specified therein.

(3.) The point raised by the petitioner turns on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 11 (1) read with sections 10 (1) (a) and 9 (d) of the Act to which T shall presently refer, Section 11 empowers the District Munsif to decide questions of disqualifications of members. The District Munsif is entitled to entertain an application if he is intimated by the Block Development Officer, under Section 10 (3) of the Act that a person has ceased to be a member of the pancbayat Samithi. It is also provided that where any member himself entertains any doubt whether or not. he has become disqualified under that Section, that member can file an application before the District Munsif. Under Section 11 (2) the District Munsif, has to enquire and determine whether or not such member is disqualified under Section 10. The member, in respect of whom a decision under Section 1 is pending shall be entitled by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) to act as if he were not disqalified until final orders are passed under Section II. A reading of section 1 discloses that the District Munsif has jurisdiction to decide whether or not a member in respect of whom the question arose, is disqualfied under Section 10 of the Act. There is no reference in Section 11 to the disqualifications specified in section 9 of the Act. However, the disqualifications specified in Section 9 are considered to be disqualifications under Section 10 (1) (a) which reads thus :