Sri Palamanda Prabhakar and others filed W.P.No.16344/2006 praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records issued in proceedings No.1792/SEC/82/2006, dated 29-7-2006 by 151 respondent and to quash the same and to pass such other suitable orders. Respondents 7 to 12 were impleaded as per the order made by this Court dated 25-9-2006 in W.P.M.P.No.24747/2006. The pi respondent filed counter affidavit. Likewise, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. A reply affidavit also was filed.

2. W.P.No.17404/2006 is filed by A. Ambika praying for a writ of mandamus calling for records issued in proceedings No.1792/SECB.2/2006 dated 3-8-2006 by the 151 respondent - and to set aside the same as without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and to pass such other suitable orders. The 151 respondent filed counter affidavit just on similar lines taking virtually the same stand which had been taken in the former Writ Petition.

3. In view of the fact that the factual matrix involved in both the Writ Petitions and the questions of law being common, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

4. Submissions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No.16344/2006 had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the contents of the order impugned in this Writ Petition and would submit that in the light of Article 243-K of the Constitution of India such power cannot be exercised by the State Election Commission at this stage and hence the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also had referred to Article 243-D (b) of the Constitution of India and Sections 201 and 233 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience). While elaborating these Sections, the Counsel also had referred to the old Rule 12 and the corresponding Rule, the present Rule 16, and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 62. The Counsel would submit that inasmuch as the election process was complete by declaration of results, the issuance of certificate being only a ministerial job, by that it cannot be said that the election process is not completed. The Counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances the State Election Commission is not empowered to initiate such action as specified in the impugned proceeding. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

5. Submissions of Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar: Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner in W. P. No.17404/ 2006, substantially while adopting the arguments advanced by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, had further explained what is the meaning of election and when it can be said that the election process commences and when the same comes to an end. The learned Counsel would submit that when once the results are declared the State Election Commission would become functus officio. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others1, Ram Phal Kunda v. Kamal Sharma2 and G. Sunitha v. Election Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others3. The learned Counsel also would maintain that if the stand taken by the concerned District Collector and the stand taken by the State Election Commission to be accepted, then, it will amount to these authorities collecting some evidence by way of expert opinion and it would also amount to reopening of the issue already decided. The learned Counsel also had explained the peculiar facts involved in the matter and would submit that at any stretch of imagination, on the strength of such insufficient material, preventing democratically elected Sarpanch from functioning as Sarpanch, would be totally unjustifie