Heard Sri Sridhar Reddy representing Sri Raghuveer Reddy, the counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj representing Respondent No.1 and Sri Prabhakar Rao representing Respondent No.2.

2. It is stated that the petitioner pursuant to the election notification issued for conduct of election to the post of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Hasnapur, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District, had contested the election to the post of member of Hasnapur Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency and the elections to the said post were conducted on 28-6-2006 and the counting was done on 4-7 -2006. It is also stated that the petitioner had contested the election on behalf of Telangana Rastra Samithi while the third respondent herein had contested on behalf of Telugu Desam party and the fourth respondent had contested the election on behalf of Bharatiya Janata Party. It is stated that the second respondent without counting the votes properly, had declared the third respondent as elected and the petitioner had disputed the counting at the time of counting of votes itself. It is stated that the symbols were allotted basing on parties and as the counting was not done properly, the 2nd respondent had shown that the petitioner had secured 902 votes while the third respondent was shown to have secured 910 votes and the fourth respondent 38 votes. 63 votes were shown as invalid. It is also stated that the second respondent committed several irregularities. The other factual details need not be gone into since the same may not be necessary for the, purpose of disposal of the present writ petition. It is also stated that Utnoor Mandal is in Agency Area and Hasnapur and other Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies of Utnoor fall under the agency area. As such, an election petition was presented to the first respondent under the rules framed for constitution of Election Tribunals. These rules are known as A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to in short the Rules) and they were issued in G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 3-3-1995 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 233 and Section 268 (1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. For the purpose of convenience, Rule 2 (1) of the Rules referred to supra may be glanced at, which reads as hereunder:

"2 (1).. No election held under the Act, whether of a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President and Vice President of Mandal Parishad and Member of Mandal Parish ad Territorial Constitutively and Chairperson of Zilla Parishad and Member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency thereof shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these Rules to the Election Tribunal as defined in sub-rule (2) by any candidate or elector against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected (hereinafter called the returned candidate) or if there are two or more returned candidates against all or any such candidates.

(2) The Election Tribunal shall be,

(i) except in cases following (sic. falling) under clause (ii)

(a) the District Munsiff, if there is more than one District Munsiff, the Principal District Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Gram Panchayat is located, in respect of the election of members, Sarpanchas and Upa Sarpanchas of Gram Panchavat.

(b) The Subordinate Judge or if the is more than one Subordinate Judge at the headquarters, having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad as the case may be, is located, in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of President, Vice President and members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies.

EXPLANATION: For purpose of these rules, the expressions "Subor