DARA LAVANYA Vs. CHILUKA AMBAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 29-4-2006 in the Election OP.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar district, (Election Tribunal), had filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quash the same.

(2.) In the aforesaid OP the evidence of P.W.1, R.Ws. 1 to 5 was recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge-Election Tribunal, Sircilla and Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Ex.R-1 were marked. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the petitioner incurs disqualification under Section 13-B of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and accordingly allowed the OP. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this court through the grounds raised and also would submit that as far as the disqualification relating to having more than two children is concerned, the ground of adoption raised no longer survives in the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Javed and others v. State of Haryana and others. However, the learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court to Rule 10 of the A.P. Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the purpose of convenience) and would contend that setting aside the Election of such disqualification is not a ground under the said rule. The learned counsel would also submit that Section 326 of the Act deals with the rule making power. Under Section 17 of the Act separate procedure is contemplated and hence this disqualification cannot be dealt with by the concerned Election Tribunal. The procedure followed is something different. The learned counsel would submit that the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Election Tribunal. But however this being a question of law it would neither operate as res judicata nor estoppel and hence the same is being raised as a ground before this court.