( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 14-10-2004 in o. P. No. 83 of 2001 on the file of the election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, gudiwada and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:

( 3 ) IN the election held on 15-7-2001 for the Mandal Parishad Territorial constituency (M. P. T. C.) of Serivelpur, the petitioner was elected as a Member of the said M. P. T. C. Later, she was also elected as President of Mandal Praja parishad. The third respondent herein, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed o. P. No. 83 of 2001 on the file of the election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, gudiwada, seeking a declaration that the writ petitioner was disqualified on the ground that she has not completed the age of 21 years on the date of filing of the nomination. The writ petitioner, who was arrayed as the first respondent in the O. P. No. 83 of 2001, filed a counter denying the allegations. Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the writ petitioner did not attain the age of 21 years as on the date of filing her nomination and therefore she was not qualified to contest the election and accordingly allowed o. P. No. 83 of 2001. The said order dated 14-10-2004 is under challenge in this writ petition.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that O. P. No. 83 of 2001 which was filed beyond 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election is barred by limitation and therefore the same was liable to be dismissed in limine on that ground alone. He contends that even if it is taken as an application by a voter under section 22 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj act, 1994 seeking declaration as to the alleged disqualification suffered by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the senior Civil Judge, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction since under Section 22 of the Act the District Court alone is competent to adjudicate the question of disqualification.

( 6 ) IT is to be noted that under section 155 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj act, 1994, (for short, the Act ) no person shall be eligible for election as a Member of mandal Parishad or a Member of Zilla parishad unless he has completed the age of 21 years. Thus, undoubtedly, it is a disqualification and is a valid ground to question the election of the Returned candidate. Section 233 of the Act states that no election held under the Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such rules as may be made in that behalf. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 233 and 268 (1) of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh made A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995, (for short, the Rules ) under G. O. Ms. No. 111, P. R. R. D. andr (Elec. III) Department, dated 3-3-1995. As per Rule 2 (I) of the rules, the Election Petition shall be presented to the Election Tribunal by any candidate or elector against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected. So far as the election disputes pertaining to elections to M. P. T. C. is concerned, rule 2 (2){i) (b) defines the Election Tribunal as the Subordinate Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Mandal Parishad is located. Rule-3 mandates that such election petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. Rule 5 provides that at the lime of presentation of the petition, the petit