SIRIGINEEDI SURYANARAYANAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhimasankaram.

(2.) The petitioner is a member elected to the Panchayat of Ramachandrapuram as newly constituted under the amended Panchayat Act. He seeks the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada the 2nd respondent to forbear from holding a meeting of taking any other proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him for the purpose of co-opting a woman member for the said Panchayat as provided for by Section 10(A) of the Act as amended.

(3.) It appears that the 8th respondent was appointed temporary president of the. Panchayat, during the interregnum between the expiry of the period of office of the members of the old panchayat and the coming into effect of the office of the members elected under the provisions of the amended Act, This appointment was purported to be made by the Inspector of Local Boards under Sub-section (3) of Section 25. The petitioner claims that it is the 8th respondent and not the District Panchayat Officer who must conduct the meeting of the newly elected members for the co-option of the woman member to take place. He refers to G.O. Ms. No. 461, Local Administration, which was issued on the 23rd of March, 1956, under Section 112 (1) of the Act. His contention is that a subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 1090 dated the 4th August 1956, which provides that such a meeting should be convened, in cases where no special officer has been appointed, by the District Panchayat Officer is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that it is only the temporary president appointed under Section 25(3)who should conduct the meeting, We are not really concerned with the validity or otherwise of the earlier Government order; for if the Government can frame a rule undo Section 112 (1) of the Act directing that such an election should be held by the District Panchayat Officer in cases where no Special Officer has been appointed, then the later rule should be deemed to have supersede the earlier one.