BHIMASANKARAM, J. :-

The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 9 to forbear from electing a president from among themselves to the village panchayat of Chinalingayapalem. The respondents 3 to 9 have been elected members of the panchayat in an election which took place on 2-5-1956. Under Section 21 of the Act as it stands amended now, the members have got to elect one among themselves, as president. The petitioner contends that the election of these respondents as members is invalid for two reasons.

Firstly, he says that the allotment of an additional member to one of the wards necessitated by the amendment should not have been made by the District Panchayat Officer, without consulting the panchayat as required by Section 9 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. Secondly, he maintains that in making the actual allotment, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in that the voters in one of the wards who elected four members obtained special advantage over the voters in the other two wards who elected the other three members between them. As he challeges the validity of the whole election process he has impleaded also the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, and the Deputy Panchayat Officer, Bapatla (North), as respondents 1 and 2 who were responsible for the allotment of the extra seat to ward No. 1 and the election respectively.

2So far as the first ground is concerned it is already covered by our decision in Panchayat, Pandrapadu v. State of Andhra, W P No. 304 of 1956 : ( (S) AIR 1957 Andh Pra 355) (A). For the reasons given there we cannot entertain this objection.

3. The second contention however requires more serious consideration. The necessary facts are these : This village was originally divided under Section 9 (1) of the Act into three wards. Ward No. 1 consists of 813 voters, ward No 2 of 442 and ward No. 3 of 204 voters. The first ward was to elect 3 members, the second ward 2 members and the third ward one member. After the Amendment Act, the District Panchayat Officer allotted to the first ward the extra seat necessitated by the president also having to be a member. The result was that four members of the panchayat have been elected by 813 voters, 2 members by 442 voters and one member by 204 voters.

It is said that this meant that every voter in the first ward exercised four votes ; every voter in the second ward two votes and every voter in the third ward only one vote. Now, the present Petitioner himself belongs to the first ward. It is difficult to see what his grievance is. On the above facts, it is the voters in the second and third wards that could have a just cause for complaint. The truth seems to be that the petitioner is attempting to invalidate the whole election because those, in whom he is interested, have not been successful.

4The issue of the constitutionality of a law cannot be allowed to be raised at the instance of a person whose rights are not directly affected by the law which he impugns. Apart from this fact, the powers exercisable by the High Court under Article 226 should not, in my opinion, be drawn upon at the instance of a petitioner inspired by indirect motives. In this view, it is unnecessary for me to discuss at length the decisions of the Supreme Court of America purporting to follow which, my learned brother Chandra Reddy J., held in Ratna Sabhapathi Rao v. State of Madras, 1953-1 Mad LJ 252 : (AIR 1953 Mad 510) (B), that questions relating to delimitation of wards and allotment of seats thereto are not justiciable matters being solely within the ambit of executive power. It was a case relating to a municipality. There the division into wards and the allotment of seats was made under Section 43 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, provision very similar in terms to section 9 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. The learned Judge made the following observations in that case :

"It is for the Government to arrange