P. SATYANARAYANA. Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a yoter in the third ward of the village Racherla, a second class panchayat. He seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the election proceedings of the District Panchayat Officer, West Gcdavari. He complains that in the recent panchayat elections which took place in the village, the allocation of the extra seat necessitated by the latest Andhra Amendment of the Madras Village Panchayat Act should have been made to the third instead of the second ward. The respective voting strength of the wards is as follows:- Ward No. 1 280 Ward No. 2 230 Ward No. 3 271 Ward No. 4 385 According to the previous allocation of the seats under Section 9 (2) of the Act. the Inspector allocated two seats to the first ward, one to the second, one to the third and two to the fourth ward. The District Panchayat Officer, in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 334 L. A. dated 2nd March, 1955, allocated the extra seat to the 2nd ward. If he had followed the instructions given in the circular issued by the Inspector on 27-3-1956, he should have allotted the extra seat to the third instead of to the 2nd ward. The petitioner therefore objects that the District Panchayat Officer's allocation is contrary to the instructions of his superiors and is also otherwise opposed to the rule of equality.

(2.) We cannot agree that the mere fact that the District Panchayat Officer has made the allocation contrary to the direction of the Government gives the petitioner legitimate cause for complaint before this Court. If the allocation is not in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, the matter may require consideration. But, we are satisfied that on the facts above-stated, it is not possible to say that the distribution of the seats is so unequal as to call our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In whatever manner the seats are distributed there is bound to be some inequality on the basis of the above voting strength and it is not possible to arrive at mathematical equality. That being so, we cannot see that the petitioner is aggrieved.

(3.) In the result. the petition fails and is dismissed with costs of the additional respondents; Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-. The Government however is not. entitled to any costs because it is conceded on their behalf, that the allocation is not in accordance with their instructions and they do not support it. Petition dismissed.