Common Judgment:

The subject matter of these three writ petitions is identical. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

Elections to the Narayanapuram Gram Panchayat were held on 06.07.2006. The petitioners in these writ petitions were declared elected as Members of Ward Nos.1, 6 and 2 respectively. The persons arrayed as respondents No.2 in each of the writ petitions (for short ‘the respondents’) filed O.P.Nos.2, 5 and 3 respectively before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, challenging the election of the petitioners. The common ground urged in all the election petitions is that the petitioners herein have given birth to third child after expiry of one year from 30.05.1994, on which date the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), came into force. The petitioners denied the allegations. They have also raised objection as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the said issue. Through separate but similar judgments, dated 16.04.2007, the Tribunal allowed the election petitions. The election of the petitioners was set aside and the respondents were declared elected.

The petitioners contend that an issue relating to the disqualifications under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act is to be determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the Act and that there is no scope for the Tribunal to entertain the O.Ps. It is urged that the respondent did not plead, much less prove the basic and relevant facts. They further contend that the Tribunal deviated from the settled principles of evidence and held that the petitioners incurred disqualification by placing burden upon them, though no documentary or oral evidence was adduced, by the respondents, on material aspects.

On behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that once it is not disputed that the petitioners have more than two children, the burden rests upon them to prove that the third child was not born after 30.05.1995. They assert that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the question of disqualification under Section 17 to 19 of the Act, in an election is independent of the power of the District Court under Section 22 of the Act and that there is no overlapping.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings instituted by the respondents before the Tribunal are more akin to the applications, under Section 22 of the Act, inviting opinion relating to disqualification, than the election petitions, provided for under the Act and the Rules. He also submits that even if the election petitions are maintainable, it was obligatory for the respondents to plead and prove the facts leading to disqualification and that not a word was said about the manner, in which, the petitioners are said to have incurred disqualification. He further submits that the Tribunal rested the burden of proof upon the petitioners and bestowed its attention only to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the petitioners, though no evidence, worth its name, was adduced by the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the view taken by the Tribunal that it has jurisdiction to entertain the O.Ps is based upon a Judgment rendered by this Court in M. Jagannadha Rao vs. Govt. of A.P. (2007 (1) ALD 779). He further submits that where the allegation is that the respondent in an election petition incurred disqualification, on account of his or her giving birth to third child, the burden rests upon such candidates to prove that the birth of the child took place within one year from 30.05.1994.

The Tribunal framed the similar issues, in all the petitions, and they read as under:

I) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition?

II) Whether the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar is necessary party to this petition. If so, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

III) Whether the 1st Respondent is disqualified to continue as Ward Member of Narayanap