On 23.7.2009 this Court initially directed the matter to appear in the list on 31.7.2009 at 2-15 p.m. and till then it was directed that the status quo obtaining as on that day be maintained by the parties. On 31.7.2009 this Court issued Rule Nisi and the status quo granted earlier on 23.7.2009 was extended until further orders.

2. The first respondent-contesting respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2401 of 2009 praying for vacation of the interim order specified supra.

3. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel representing the first respondent in the writ petition and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 3 to 8.

4. The counsel on record at this stage made a request for final disposal of the writ petition and, hence, the writ petition was heard finally by this Court and the same is being disposed of finally.

5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and declaring the order dated 17.7.2009 in O.P.No.4 of 2006 made by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, perverse and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.

6. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge and also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Act and also the relevant rules and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the order under challenge is not sustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the relevant findings recorded by the Election Tribunal-Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District and would maintain that the Election Tribunal-Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda (hereinafter in short referred to as “Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience) had not recorded proper reasons and certain of the important documents had not been considered at all. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.111 and also the Rules 12 and 13 apart from Sections 17 and 233 of the Act. While elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also laid emphasis on Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 and further would point out that except Ex.P-3, no other acceptable evidence had placed before this Court relating to the age and the author of the said document had not been examined and the correspondent was examined. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Tribunal also adopted double standards in appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant paras and further would point out that the pleadings of the parties appear to be something different from the nature of evidence and the nature of grounds which had been put forth and the aspect of burden of proof also had not been properly appreciated. The non-framing of appropriate issues for point for consideration also had been pointed out. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel representing writ petitioners Sri C. Raghu would maintain that even if for any reason this Court to come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner is to be disqualified to hold the office by virtue of under age, the declaration in favour of the first respondent as having been duly elected cannot be granted, especially, in the absence of necessary pleading and necessary material in this regard. The learned counsel also further pointed out that this aspect of under age cannot be permitted to be raised, es