TADI LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. CHALLA SATYANARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the contesting respondent in a writ petition, who seeks to assail the correctness of the orders of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ as per orders in WP No.17363 of 2008, dated 12.9.2003.

(2.) In brief, the facts, which, at this stage, not in dispute are that in an election conducted in the year 2006 to the Gram Panchayat the respondent No. 1 herein, who is the writ petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Challenging the same, on the ground of disqualification purportedly falling under Section 19(3) of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, for having a 3rd child after the elections were notified, a petition was filed in OP No.4 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District. After appearance by the appellant and after filing of the counter-affidavit by the respondent No.l, the trial commenced. While so, an application was filed by the respondent No.l in IA No.1257 of 2007 for receipt of certain documents. On being opposed, the said Tribunal did not accede to the request and dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, a writ petition has been filed by the respondent No.l on the ground that such rejection is wholly impermissible, especially, on the ground of want of power, which according to the respondent No.1 can be traced to the Rule 7 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, which contemplates the trial of the suits and the process therein. These submissions were opposed on behalf of the appellant herein. However, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the scope and the ambit of the power conferred and provided for the purpose of trial under the aforesaid rule, held that there is ample power vested in the Tribunal to receive the documents. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the fact that there being no such specific provision and power conferred for receipt of documents separately, the Tribunal could not have received the documents and there is no jurisdiction. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein.