PEDDU SANKARA RAO Vs. PEDDU RAGHAVENDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Revision Petition was elected as a member of the Village Panchayat of Zamigolvepalli. The election was held on 22nd October, 1959. On 20th January, 1960, the respondents, who are also the members of the Village Panchayat of Zamigolvepalli, filed a petition in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, under section 19, clause (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (X of 1950) praying to adjudge the petitioner herein as not qualified to be elected as a member of the Village Panchayat of Zamigolvepalli at the election held on 22nd October, 1959. The ground on which the election of the petitioner was sought to be declared void was that the petitioner was under 21 years of age both on the date of registration as a voter in the Electoral Roll and on the date of his nomination and election as member of the Village Panchayat. The O. P. No. 3 of 1960 was filed under section 19, clause (1), which is as follows :

(2.) But, it is common ground that the petitioner's name appears on the electoral roll of the concerned panchayat. It follows that the petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications which are prescribed by section 13 to be elected as a member of the panchayat. It is clear, therefore, to my mind, that the petitioner was not at all disqualified for being a member of the panchayat.

(3.) But, it is argued by Sri Manavala Chowdary, the learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner was less than 11 years of age on the date when bis name was included in the electoral roll and that, on this ground also, the petition (O.P. 3 of 1960) under section 19 (1) of the Act, in the lower Court, is maintainable and that the respondents are entitled to prove that the petitioner was in fact less than 21 years of age and is not qualified to be elected as a member. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the correctness or otherwise of the entry in the electoral roll cannot be canvassed in a proceeding under section 19 (1) of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The jurisdiction conferred by the Act under section 19 (1) on the prescribed judicial authority is a limited one, and he could only consider whether a candidate is qualified or disqualified under sections 13, 15, 16 or 17. It is not open to that authority to go into the validity of the election on any other ground. As already pointed out, the only challenge against the election of the petitioner was that he did not have the requisite qualifications under section 13 as he was under 21 years of age. But section 13 does not state that a person shall be of the age of 21 years before he can stand for the election as a member. If his name was included in the electoral roll, he was qualified to be a member of the panchayat under section 13.