Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against order of the learned Trial Judge, dated 25.11.2014, by which His Lordship has been pleased to allow the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the learned District Judge, suspending the proceedings issued by the Presiding Officer with regard to defiance of whip by the appellant and incurring resultant disqualification.

2. It appears from the records that the first respondent herein has filed the Writ Petition against Government of Telangana. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed to the fact that the Government of Telangana is not sui juris under Article 300 of the Constitution of India. Even the Government of Telangana was not made party before the learned District Judge. The writ petitioner on his own has impleaded it as party respondent. The learned Trial Judge by necessary implication accepted the Government of Telangana as sui juris. We declare that the Government of Telangana is not sui juris and it is the State of Telangana. Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India read with Section 79 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Presiding Officer, though Officer of the State Government, has discharged statutory function, hence, he can be sued. So, the Officer himself is the sui juris. Government of Telangana was not required to be impleaded as party respondent. We could have deleted, but when the learned Trial Judge has accepted, we cannot delete on our own.

3. We think that the impugned order has been passed in the Writ Petition filed involving a non-existent party and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the Writ Petition was not instituted as per law and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and prays to give a chance to the writ petitioner to reopen the matter before His Lordship. We are inclined to consider this course of action but both the learned counsel very fairly came to consensus to put an end to the issue and dispute in the Writ Petition as well as in the Writ Appeal in the manner as follows:-.

4. Mr. E. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant, submits, in his usual fairness, that proceeding instituted by his client before the learned District Judge is not legal. He submits that order impugned before the learned District Judge was passed by the Presiding Officer. Under the statute, remedy is by way of application, namely, Original Petition. But, under the wrong advice, the appellant has presented Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge has accepted the same and passed order accordingly. He also submits that his client will file appropriate proceedings as provided under Section 153A of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

5. It is an admitted position that the learned District Judge has passed the interim order of suspension of the order of disqualification.

6. In the aforesaid factual scenario, both the learned counsel have agreed to the following course of action adopted by this Court and accordingly, we pass the following order.

7. The appellant will be free to make such application or to take such steps within fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order of suspension passed by the learned District Judge will continue for the time being for a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to file such application by the appellant, the interim order passed by the learned District Judge will stand automatically vacated. If such application is filed, then the interim order passed by the learned District Judge will revive to the extent that no step shall be taken by the first respondent to fill up the vacancy in consequence to the order of disqualification. The learned District Judge shall hear out and decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, without fail and without granting adjournment except on the ground of illness of th