GANDLA NARASIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ is filed questioning the letter No.A1/59/2015 dated 27.2.2016, issued by the 4th respondent-Mandal Praja Parishad communicating the decision taken on the representation dated 23.09.2015 of the petitioner with respect to disqualification of the 5th respondent under Section 19 (3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act).

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that that 5th respondent was found to have had three children and thereby the disqualification attached to her under Section 19(3) of the Act making her ineligible to continue as Member of the Mandal Praja Parishad. Bringing the disqualification earned by the 5th respondent, petitioner made a representation to 4th respondent and as no action was taken against the 5th respondent, petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.No.36235 of 2015 and this Court by an order dated 06.11.2015, directed the 4th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to initiate appropriate action against the 5th respondent under the Act. Thereafter, the 4th respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioner by rejecting the same and thus exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in N. Tirupataiah v. District Panchayat Officer, Nellore and others and G. Janaki Ramudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another submits that the 4th respondent exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 22 of the Act in rejecting the complaint. Elaborating on this aspect, learned counsel submits that it is only the District Court which can determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations and validity or other wise of Members disqualification in an Election Petition. Contrary to the same, the 4th respondent after taking into consideration of the material alleged to have been filed by the 5th respondent to the notice dated 20.02.2016 made an elaborate enquiry and declared 5th respondent has not earned the disqualification which is otherwise not empowered to under Section 22 of the Act.