JUDGMENT :

S.B. Sinha, J.

A short but interesting question as regards the vires of Section 19(2)(d) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993(Act No. 14 of 1993) arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions.

2. One Sri Puttu Krishna Ranga Rao, an Ex-President of Mandal Praja Parishad in West Godavari District, has filed these two Writ Petitions. By the time he filed the earlier Writ Petition W.P.No. 17532 of 2000, notification for conduct of elections to Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads had not been issued. After the notification for elections had been issued on 22-6-2001, he filed the latter writ petition W.P.No.13048 of 2001.

3. The petitioner is a partner of a partnership firm, which entered into a contract with the Railways for supply of road metal and the same was subsisting. He was disqualified from contesting for the post of member of Zilla Parishad as per Section 19(2) (d) on the ground that the contract he had entered into with Railways was subsisting. He contends that the contract the firm had entered into does not affect his functioning as member of the Zilla Parishad. He further contends that the disqualification shall not be irrational and violate the statutory or substantive rights guaranteed to the citizens to contest the elections and the same offends the very spirit of 73rd Constitutional Amendment pursuant to whereof the new Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 came to be enacted. As per Section 9-A of Representative of People Act, a person who is intended to contest for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly can be disqualified if he has any subsisting contract with the State Government. Similarly, a person can be disqualified from contesting for the post of member of Parliament if he has any subsisting contract with the Central Government. But, by reason of sub-section 2(d) of Section 19 of the Act, such disqualification is attracted not only in a case where a person is interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any working being done for, the Panchayat Raj institutions i.e., Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad but also in a case where the person is interested in subsisting contract made with the State or Central Governments. Therefore, a candidate who seeks to contest for Gram Panchayat or Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad has to face more stringent conditions than a candidate who seeks to contest as Member of Legislative Assembly or member of Parliament. A member of a Zilla Parishad or Mandal Parishad is supposed to perform the functions assigned to him under the provisions of the Act and such person cannot influence either the State or Central Governments. Therefore the inclusion of the words 'Central Government or State Government'-in Section 19(2) (d)thereby disqualifying the candidates seeking election for the post of Sarpanch or member of Panchayat or Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad who had subsisting contract with the State Government or Central Government is irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The above provision denies an opportunity to the candidates who intend to contest for the Office of member of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad. Therefore, Section 19(2) (d) so far as it includes the words 'Central Government or State Government'- is liable to be declared as invalid, illegal, arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional and contrary to the objects underlined under Art. 243-F of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as his contract with the railway authorities for supply of gravel has no nexus vis-a-vis his right to contest the panchayat election, Section 19(2) (d) of the Act which provides for a bar must be held to be invalid in law.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the contention of the petitioner that his contract with the Central Government has absolutely no nexus vis-a-vis his rig