( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed questioning the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 111, PR, RD, and R. (Election-III) Department, dated 3-3-1995 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts in nutshell are as follows, The writ petitioner was elected as sarpanch of Tatarlapalli Gram Panchayat, nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District defeating 2nd respondent in Gram panchayat elections held on 20-8-2001 and she had assumed charge and has been discharging her functions as Sarpanch from the said time onwards. The 2nd respondent filed, an Election Petition, O. P. No. 7/2001 before Election Tribunal headed by District munsif exercising the jurisdiction as persona designata and not as a Judge under sub- clause (3) of Clause (2) of G. O. Ms. No. 111, pr, RD and R (Election-III) Department dated 3-3-1995, r/w. Section 233 of A. P. Panchayat raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to in short as "act". The said Election Petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner had become disqualified prior to getting elected as Sarpanch inasmuch as she begot three children which is a disqualification under section 19 (3) of the Act and the said Election petition was posted to 5-12-2001 for the purpose of filing counter. The present Writ petition is filed questioning the validity of g. O. MS. NO. 111, PR, RD and R (Election-111) department, dated 3-3-1995, aforesaid r/w. Section 233 of the Act, on the ground of discrimination and also on the ground of the remedy being more harsh than provided under Section 22 of the Act. It was also stated that the decision of an Election tribunal is final in view of Rule 15 (iii) of g. O. Ms. No. 111 and no Appeal or Revision is provided for as against the said order. Under Section 22 of the Act, any voter can give an intimation that a particular Member of the Gram Panchayat was disqualified and such Member or the executive authority on the direction of the Grain Panchayat alone will be entitled to file a petition to declare such Member as disqualified under sections 17,18,19 and 20 of the Act. It was also stated that absolutely no guidelines are provided for when to invoke Section 22 of the Act and G. O. Ms. No. 111 aforesaid.

( 3 ) A counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the 2nd respondent had filed Election O. P. No. 7/2001 on the file of Election, Tribunal- cum-District Munsif, Vinukonda challenging the election of the writ petitioner as Sarpanch of Talarlapalli Gram panchayat as void, 111egal and liable to be set-aside as she is disqualified to contest the election as per Section 19 (3) of the Act as she is having three children. It is also stated that even at the time of scrutiny of nominations this objection was raised, but however the election Officer without taking into consideration of the said objection had accepted her nomination. It is also stated that all the particulars of the children of the writ petitioner had been given in detail in the Election Petition and the Writ Petition is filed without filing a counter in the Election petition and the present Writ Petition is filed on untenable grounds only with a view to delay the proceedings before the Election tribunal. In paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit it was specifically stated that the proper remedy available to her is only to file an Election Petition and not to invoke the procedure as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act.

( 4 ) NO counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent.

( 5 ) SRI Movva Chandra Sekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had made the following submissions. The learned Counsel had maintained that the remedies provided for relating to disqualifications under Sec. 19 (3) of the Act, both under Section 22 of the Act and also G. O. Ms. No. 111, in fact operate in the same field and absolutely there are no guidelines at all under what circumstances the remedy under Section 22 has to be invoked and