( 1 ) THE petitioner is former Sarpanch of Ainavolu Gram Panchayat in Nujendla Mandal of Guntur District. He seeks a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, namely, the District Collector, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer. Narsaraopet and Mandal Panchayat Officer, Nujendia in reserving the office of Sarpanch of Ainavolu Gram Panchayat for Scheduled Castes (SC) persons instead of Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayat (fourth respondent herein) as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and also prays for a consequential reliefs.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. Ainavolu was a revenue village and Pathacherukumpalem was its hamlet. In the year 1966 Pathacherukumpalem was declared as village for the purpose of Panchayat Raj Act and it became an independent Gram, Panchayat whereupon two separate voters lists are prepared for these two Gram Panchayats. According to the petitioner, as per Article 243-D of the Constitution of India and relevant provisions of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act ) the offices of Appapuram, Jangalapalle, Mulakaluru and Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayats, which have highest population of SC. have to be reserved whereas Ainavolu Gram Panchayat is reserved wrongly in an arbitrary and illegal manner. There are only 94 voters belonging to SC in Ainavolu whereas there are 325 such voters in Pathacherukumpalem. The petitioner placed reliance on the voters list published in 1999 for Ainavolu Gram Panchayat and Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayat. The percentage of SC voters to total population of Ainavolu works to 4. 95% whereas the percentage of voters of Pathacherukumpalem is works out to 19. 6% insofar as the population is concerned Pathacherukumpalem has 15. 82% of SC population whereas Ainavolu has 6. 344% of SC population. Therefore it is submitted that it is improper and illegal. The Writ Petition was filed- on 6-9-2000. The Court ordered Notice before admission. When the matter was called before this Bench on 27-7-2001, we directed the matter to be posted for admission 31-7-2001. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has filed a counter-affidavit and the petitioner also filed a rejoinder/reply affidavit. We have heard the matter at length and therefore the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Second respondent herein it is stated that the District Census Hand Book does not contain the population figures of SCs and STs for Pathacherukumpalem village as in the case of other such villages where hamlets have been constituted as separate Gram Panchayats. Therefore, the population figures of SCs and STs have been ascertained from the Extension Officers and Divisional Panchayat Officers of the Department and the figures furnished by those officers were adopted for the purpose of making reservation to such hamlets. This is sought to be justified on the ground that during Panchayat elections 1995 also the same method was followed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a reply affidavit inter alia stating that the total population of Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayat, comprising five hamlets is 2167, that one of the hamlets included in Pathacherukumpalem Gram Panchayat known as Malapalle has population of 343 and therefore the same has to be considered as SC population in which event Pathacherukumpalem would have 15. 82% of SC population.

( 5 ) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether having regard to the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India whether this Court can invalidate the action of the second respondent in reserving Ainavolu Gram Panchayat for SC candidates though prima facie Pathacherukumpalem in Nujendia Mandal has higher percentage of SC population.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 243-O (a) dealing with Panchayat and Article 243-ZG dealing with municipalities are in pari materia with each other. The provision states that the v