Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent State Election Commission and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 2 to 6 and Sri Ravindra Bharati, learned Counsel for the 7th respondent.

2. The petitioner questions the Proceedings No.730/SEC-B2/2006 dated 29.7.2006 of the 1st respondent-State Election Commission, in re-notifying the election programme for the Office of the Sarpanch and the Ward Member pertaining to Ward No.9 of Adireddypalle Gram Panchayat from the stage of publication of list of contesting candidates and also rescheduling the date of poll for conducting elections of Ward Members of other Wards to synchronize it with elections of Sarpanch and Ward Member of Ward No.9 of Adireddypalle Gram Panchayat in Mydukuru Mandal, Kadapa District.

3. A perusal of the said notification of the State Election Commission would go to show that the election notification for conducting elections to Adireddypalle Gram Panchayat was issued on 15.7.2006 and the 7th respondent-Moode Kote Naik filed nominations for both Sarpanch and Ward Member of Ward No.9 of the said Gram Panchayat. But, the Returning Officer erroneously rejected the nomination of the 7th respondent on the ground that he cannot contest for both the offices of Sarpanch as well as Ward Member and after expiry of time for withdrawal of the candidature, the elections were held for the post of Sarpanch and the petitioner was unanimously elected to the office of the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The Returning Officer also issued a certificate in Form No.XXIX under Rule 63 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 (for short "the Rules, 2006") duly declaring the petitioner elected Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat on 23.7.2006.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that once he has been declared elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the Election Commission becomes functus officio and it is for the Election Tribunal duly constituted to decide all the questions relating to disqualification, corrupt practices, improper rejection, improper acceptance, improper reception, non-compliance of provisions of the Act etc. Further, it is for the Election Tribunal to declare the election of the Returned Candidate to be void under Rule 12( c) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, MandaI Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995").

5. In the instant case, for the alleged improper rejection of the nomination of the 7th respondent for the office of the Sarpanch as well as the Ward Member, the only course left open to the 7th respondent is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal for declaration of the election of the petitioner as void on the ground that the nomination of the 7th respondent was improperly or illegally rejected.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-State Election Commission submits that under Article 243-k of the Constitution of India, the Election Commission has got power with regard to superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats. Article 243-K of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“Elections to the Panchayats :-The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine:

Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like ground as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of se