K RAMANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the members of Valigonda Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP') for short. The third respondent is the president of the MPP. The Petitioners are questioning the validity of G.O.Ms. No.335 PR & RD (Mandal II) Department dated 31-5-1989 issued by the first respondent State Government, and are praying for a declaration that the third respondent ceased to be the president of MPP on the ground that the third respondent committed default-in holding the meeting of the MPP, as required under S.26(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Mandal Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads & Zilla Pranalika Abhvridhi Sameeksha Mandals Act, Act No.3 of 1986 (The 'Act', for brevity).

(2.) The third respondent was elected as the president of the Valigonda Mandal Praja Parishad on 15-3-87. According to the Petitioners, the third respondent held a meeting of the MPP on 24-12-87 and thereafter did not convene any other meeting within the period prescribed under Section 26(7) of the Act, thereby ceased to be the president of the MPP. The Petitioners made a representation to the Government on 23-3 88 bringing the said fact to the notice of the Government. The Government, by an order dated 18-7-818 instructed the District Collector, Nalgonda, respondent No.2 herein, to issue an order in accordance with S.26(7) of the Act. Accordingly the Collector issued an order dated 21-7-88 declaring that the third respondent ceased to be the president of the MPP. Thereupon, the third respondent filed a review/revision petition dated 23-7-88 before the Government. The Government issued orders on 27-7-88 staying the order of the Collector dated 21-7-88. The petitioners questioned the said or'der of the Government in W.P.No.1088/89 and this court by its order dt.27-1-89 suspended the order of the Government dated 27-7-88. The writ petition was finally disposed of oh 10-3-89 directing the Government to pass orders on the review/revision petition filed by the third respondent. The Petitioners also filed a petition before the Government on 25-3-89. The Government called for a report from the District Collector and after considering the same passed the impugned G.O.Ms. No.335 dated 31-5-1989, setting aside the order of the Collector dated 21 -7-1988, and allowing the third respondent to continue as the President of the MPP.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the review/revision petition filed by the third respondent was not maintainable under S.95(2) of the Act and the Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was further contended that the report of the District Collector should have formed the basis for the Government in passing orders, as the Dt. Collector has clearly reported that the third respondent failed to convene the meeting within time, as required by law.