L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether respondents 2 to 5, who were elected as members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial constituency in Yeleswaram Mandal have incurred disqualification under Section 153 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the rules contained in G. O. Ms. No. 756 dated 30-1-1994 as amended by G. O. Ms. No. 81 dated 7-12-1994. This is the 2nd round of litigation on the issue.

( 2 ). A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) came to be enacted, as a sequel to the 73rd amendment to the Constitution of India in the year 1992. A three-tier system of the panchayat Raj Institutions came to be introduced. At the bottom is the Village Gram panchayat, at the middle is the Mandal parishad and at the top is the Zilla Parishad, in the hierarchy. The Mandal Parishad comprises of territorial constituencies. From each territorial constituency, a member is to be elected and the members in turn are required to elect the President and Vice president of the Mandal Parishad.

( 3 ). Elections for the purpose of electing 19 mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency members (for short the Members ) for the yelleswaram Mandal of East Godavari district, were held on 14-7-2001. The elections were held on party lines as contemplated under the relevant provisions. Out of 19 members, 12 were elected from the Congress Party and 7 from the Telugu desam Party.

( 4 ) ELECTIONS for choosing the President of the Mandal Parishad were notified to be held on 22-7-2001. Rule 13 (6) of the Rules provides for issuance of whip by the recognised political party. The 1st petitioner herein was named as the whip by the president of the District Congress committee, East Godavari district, kakinada, through its proceedings dated 21-7-2001. The 2nd petitioner was elected as Member of Yeleswaram Mandal and she was the candidate on behalf of the Congress party for the Presidentship of Yeleswaram mandal Praja Parishad. The 1st petitioner had submitted his authorisation as well as the contents of whip to the Election Officer, the 1st respondent herein, within the stipulated time under the Rules. On the ground that 8 members elected from the congress Party have received the copies of the whip and respondents 2 to 5 have refused to receive the same, the 1st petitioner sought permission of the 1st respondent to serve copies of the whip on respondents 2 to 5, when the meeting was convened on 22-7-2001 at about 1-00 pm. Permission was accorded. However, they refused to receive the written form of the whip.

( 5 ) IN the ultimate election, the candidate i. e. , the 2nd petitioner sponsored by the congress Party was defeated. Alleging that respondents 2 to 5 have disobeyed the whip, the 1 st petitioner submitted a complaint on the same day, before the 1st respondent. Acting on the complaint, the 1 st respondent issued proceedings dated 25-7-2001, holding that respondents 2 to 5 have ceased to be the members for violating the whip issued by the 1 st petitioner herein.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 5 filed wp. No. 11567, 11568, 11569 and 15645 of 2001 in this court, challenging the orders of the 1st respondent dated 25-7-2001. The writ petitions were allowed on 19-9-2001 on the sole ground that respondents 2 to 5 herein were not issued notices before they were disqualified. Liberty was given to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings after issuing notices to them.

( 7 ) PURSUANT to the orders of this court, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dt. 15-10-2001 to respondents 2 to 5 directing them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, for violating the whip issued on behalf of the Congress Party. They submitted their explanations on 17-10-2001. The 1st respondent, who is also impleaded as respondent No. 6 eonomine, took the view that according to the Circular dated 19-7-2001 issued by the Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document