ORDER: - Heard both the Counsel.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge) Palkol in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition filed under Section 233 of the Act for the alleged disqualification suffered by returned candidate under Section 19(3) of the Act and that the District Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and that the election petitioner has not complied with the procedure under Section 22 of the Act, the present revision is filed.

3. From the material on record it could be seen that the revision petitioner filed E.O.P. NoA/2006 on the file of Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge) Palkol under Section 233 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the 1st respondent who was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Sagamcheruvu Grama Panchayat suffers disqualification under Section 19(3) of the said Act as she has four children by the date of nomination and hence sought for declaration that the 1st respondent herein should be disqualified for contesting for the post of Sarpanch and also for a declaration that the election which was held on 6.8.2006 as void. The 1st respondent, elected candidate, filed the present interlocutory application in LA. No. 1047/2006 alleging that the Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge) has no jurisdiction to entertain the election O.P. and the District Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and accordingly sought for rejection of the main O.P. By the impugned order dated 27.6.2007, the Court below considering Sections 233 and 22(1) of the Act, held that the District Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and that the revision petitioner has not followed the procedure under Section 22 of the Act and accordingly allowing the LA., rejected the election petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. The above issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge) in entertaining the election petition filed under Section 233 of the Act for the allegation of disqualification suffered by the returned candidate under Section 19(3) of the Act, is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Mellimilakshmikantam, WG. District v. The Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, W A No.836 of 2007 dated 23.10.2007, wherein it was held that the District Munsif (Junior Civil Judge) has alone got jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and the District Court has no jurisdiction.

5. From a reading of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court it could be seen that the appellant therein was elected to the post of Sarpanch, Kanuru Gram Panchayat of Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District and the 2nd respondent filed election petition in OP No.799/2006 on the file of Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, under Sections 233, 19(3) and 22(1) of the Act read with Rule 2(2)(i)(a) and 4(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules') for setting aside the election of the appellant to the post of Sarpanch and declare the 2nd respondent as duly elected. The appellant filed an interlocutory application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC read with Rule 3(2) and (7) of the Rules for dismissal of the election O.P. on the ground that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. The said interlocutory application was dismissed. Challenging the same, he filed WP No.658/2007 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 30.4.2007 while upholding the order of the lower Court, held that the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, has got jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried in appeal in W A No.836/2007. By order d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document