E SUGUNAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MAHABOOBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a writ petition being WP No.14793 of 2004 challenging the proceedings No.E/1854/01, dated 27.7.2004 and seeking its quashing as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act").

(2.) It appears that on an enquiry the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar found that the writ petitioner did not belong to BC category on the basis of which she got elected Sarpanch of Manganoor Grampanchayat, but she belongs to OC Balija. The Collector, on receipt of a complaint from one M. Ashanna, conducted an enquiry, obtained reports from Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer and gave a show-cause notice to the writ petitioner. She filed her reply, but could not submit her original caste certificate which she had not even submitted at the time of nomination before the Screening Committee. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 249(4) of the Act the District Collector removed the writ petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. The learned Single Judge found from the records that the Collector had passed an order under Section 249(4) of the Act and that order was appealable 249(7) of the Act, therefore he refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and gave liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority by way of filing an appeal. Thereafter the writ petitioner filed a review before the learned Single Judge being WPMP No. 19265 of 2005. In the review petition it was contended that the Collector had invoked the jurisdiction of Election Tribunal which was contrary to the judgment of this Court reported in Chava Rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu and another, 2004 (1) ALD 54 (DB), and she could have only been removed if the procedure under Section 22 of the Act was followed. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge that the Collector could only initiate proceedings with regard to the functions of Sarpanch in terms of Section 249(4) of the Act, but could not hold any enquiry with regard to the election of the writ petitioner. This review petition was also dismissed. The appellant filed WA No.1388 of 2005 against the order passed in the writ petition and also WA No.1355 of 2005 against the order of rejection of review.

(3.) The controversy is very short as to whether the Collector could remove the writ petitioner in terms of Section 249(4) of the Act on coming to a conclusion, after an enquiry, that the writ petitioner did not belong to BC on the basis of which she got elected Sarpanch. Section 249 of the Act lays down: