This writ petition seeks writ of quo warranto against sixth respondent herein to disclose the authority under which he is holding office of Sarpanch of Thiruchanoor Gram Panchayat and for a further direction to vacate the office of the Sarpanch. As an alternative relief, petitioners seek an order from this Court to remove sixth respondent from the office of the Sarpanch.

The petitioners 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 statedly belong to Backward Classes (BCs). In the elections conducted for the office of the Sarpanch (reserved for BCs) of Thiruchanoor, under supervision of sixth respondent on 29.7.2006, the petitioners 7, 8, sixth respondent and three others contested election. The sixth respondent was declared elected. The sixth respondent claimed to be a candidate belonging to BC-A, i.e., ‘Vannereddy’, recognized as BC in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners allege that sixth respondent hails from Tamil Nadu and belongs to Naikkar caste, which is not one of the classes/castes recognized as BC in Andhra Pradesh. They therefore assert that sixth respondent does not belong to BC in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners also referred to the evidence they procured in support of this contention. Be that as it is, seventh petitioner submitted a representation on 26.12.2006 to the second respondent requesting an enquiry against sixth respondent. The representation was allegedly forwarded to the Department of BC Welfare, who in turn by memo dated 06.1.2007 directed fourth respondent to take necessary action in the matter.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajam, Bapatla v Government of A.P. (2007(1) ALT 520) in support of the contention that when sixth respondent got elected claiming himself to be a candidate belonging to BC based on a fraudulently obtained certificate, the availability of alternative remedy under Section 233 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) is not a bar to seek judicial review. He nextly contends that sixth respondent usurped office of Sarpanch of Thiruchanoor by playing fraud on the Constitution and, therefore, as a constitutional Court, this Court can issue a writ of quo warranto without driving the aggrieved persons to alternative forum. Learned counsel relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Venkataraya v Sivarama Prasad (AIR 1961 AP 250) in support of the contention that when a disqualified person holds public office, it is open for any voter to ask for writ of quo warranto. In such circumstances, learned counsel would urge that whatever be delay, the Court is entitled to issue Rule nisi and forthwith prevent the usurper of public office from exercising public functions.

Opposing the writ petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that election was conducted on 29.07.2006. Petitioners did not avail effective alternative remedy under Section 233 of the Act as well as the A.P.Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995(hear after the Rules). He also submits that under Article 243-O of Constitution of India, jurisdiction of this Court is barred and the petitioners were required necessarily to approach the Election Tribunal for redressal. Having failed to do so, they cannot maintain the writ petition for quo warranto.

Writ of quo warranto is prerogative writ. It is in the nature of a right of the superior Court against a person who usurped public office. It enables the Court to enquire by what authority usurper supports his claim to the Office. While determining the right the Court will command him “to show by what right” (“quo warranto”) he holds office. It is also within the right of the Court whether or not to exercise discretion to ask such person to show justification for the claim. If a person seeks redressal for the grievance involving private rights, quo warranto would not lie. Further, as