(1.) Common questions arise in all these writ petitions and, therefore, they may be conveniently disposed of together.
(2.) The petitioners were Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats. They were intimated bay their respective District Collectors, that they had ceased to be Sarpanchas, as laid down under Section 25 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, (hereinafter called the Act), as they had failed to hold even a single meeting of the Gram Panchayat in a consecutive period of three months. The petitioners, thereupon, filed the writ petitions, seeking writs in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records relating to or connected with the proceedings of the Collectors, under which the intimation of cessation of office had been given to them and to quash the same.
(3.) Most of these pettions came up before Seshachalpati J. The learned Judge referred them to a Division Bench By his order dated 29th September, 1967. There were, however, two earlier decisions of Gopal Rao Ekbote J., in W. P. No. 274 of 1966 and W. p. |No. 331 of 1966. The latter case was reported in G. Venktesam v. The Collector, Medak, 919660 2 Andh Wr 249 , (1969 Lab IC 343). In those two cases also, the Sarpanchas moved this Court for the issuance of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, quashing the notice issued to them by the Collectors informing them that they had ceased to be Sarpanchas under Section 25 (2) of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the petitions holding that--