( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Budavada village in Cheemakurthi Mandal of prakasam District. He claims to be one of the voters of the said village. His grievance is that respondents 1 to 3 did not reserve any wards in the said village for candidates belonging to SCs though there are 300 SC voters in the village. Therefore, he seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reserve seats/wards in buduvada Gram Panchayat to SCs. He also challenges Article 243-O of the Constitution of India as ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit accompanying the writ Petition the petitioner states that there were 2037 voters in the village during the assembly elections. During the last Gram panchayat elections one ward was reserved for SC candidate and two for BCs. For the gram Panchayat elections-2001 the respondents have reserved two wards for bcs, but they have not reserved any ward for SC (General) or SC (Women) categories. The petitioner contends that as per Andhra pradesh Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats and Offices of Gram Panchayats, Mandal parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called reservation Rules ) the revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) is required to determine number of seats to be reserved in a Gram Panchayat concerned for members belonging to SCs and STs and as per Rule 4 (1) the reservation shall be as nearly as may be as there are SC voters in the village. The action of the respondents in not reserving any wards for SCs, though there are 300 voters is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner also states that the RDO has not sent any communication to the concerned Mandal development Officer (MDO), but still election notification was issued. This is unconstitutional being contrary to the provisions of Article 243-D of the constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE petitioner also contends that article 243-O which bars interference by courts in election matters is violative of basic structure of the Constitution of India as the same seeks to take away the power of judicial review vested in this Court and therefore it is liable to be struck down.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sri T. Rajendra Prasad, refers to the judgment of this Court in S. Fakruddin v. Government of A. P. , and submits that though the Full Bench upheld the provisions of Article 243-O in the S. L. P. filed thereagainst all the questions decided by this Court were left open by the supreme Court and therefore the question whether Article 243-O is constitutionally valid is a question which is still res Integra.

( 5 ) ON the other hand learned Additional advocate General, Sri Ramesh ranganadhan placed reliance on the judgment of apex Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, State of U. P. v. Pradhan sangh Kshettra Samiti, and Anugrah Narain singh v. State of U. P. and submits that article 243-O is constitutionally valid as the same has been interpreted by the Supreme court as not excluding judicial review and in appropriate case the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies can be questioned on limited grounds.

( 6 ) IN our considered opinion, the question whether Article 243-O is constitutionally valid or not is no more res integra. Article 243-O, Article 243-ZG and article 329 of the Constitution of India are in pari materia and they may be extracted for the sake of comparison. 243-O. Bar to interference bv Courts in electoral matters: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, - 243-ZG. Bar to interference bv Courts in electoral matters: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:- 329. Bar to interference bv Courts in electoral matters: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Art. 243-K, shall not be called in question in any Court; (a) th