ORDER :

1. W.P.No.5617 of 2022 is filed seeking a certiorari and challenging the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Election O.P.No.3 of 2021 by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District.

W.P.No.6145 of 2022 is filed to call for records of Order dated 28.01.2022 passed in E.O.P.No.3 of 2021 by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District and assailing the action of the official respondents in not declaring the 2nd petitioner i.e., 9th respondent in EOP, as Sarpanch of Veerapunayanipalle Gram Panchayat, Veerapunayanipalle Mandal, Kadapa District, in place of the disqualified Sarpanch i.e., 6th respondent.

W.P.No.4527 of 2022 is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not declaring the petitioner as elected to the post of Sarpanch as the elected candidate was declared disqualified by the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in E.O.P.No.3 of 2021 by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District.

2. Since the subject matter in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together with the consent of all the learned counsel. Main arguments were heard in W.P.No.5617 of 2022.

3. This Court has heard Sri Phani Kumar for Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioner (W.P.No.5617 of 2022), who is the 6th respondent in E.O.P.No.3 of 2021. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel argued for the main contesting respondent (3rd respondent). Sri Vinod K. Reddy, learned standing counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj have also made their submissions.

4. The record was summoned for from the lower Court by this Court’s order dated 10.08.2022.

5. The crux of the matter is about the age of the 6th respondent in Election O.P.No.3 of 2021, who is the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.5617 of 2022, and the core issue is – Is he disqualified to stand for election because he is under aged and not 21 years old as required under Section 17 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994? Along with this an issue is raised about the actual name of the 6th respondent in the E.O.P.

6. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed as in Election O.P.No.3 of 2021 for the sake of convenience. The prayer in the Election Petition filed before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal is as follows:

“…to pass an order declaring the action of respondents in not declaring the 6th respondent as intelligible for contesting in elections as under aged by considering petitioner’s objections before scrutinizing the nominations and allowing him to contest in elections and also declaring him as elected and allowing him to administer oath as “Sarpanch” for Veerapunayunipalle (V.N.Palli) Gram Panchayat, Veerapunayunipalle Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, mala fide, unjust, void ab initio besides violative of the Sec.17 of A.P. panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also violative of the Art.14 of the Constitution of India.”

7. In the course of the pleading it is stated that the 6th respondent has hidden all the correct details to hide his “original identity and Date of Birth”. In the counter filed by the 6th respondent it is asserted that the 6th respondent is always known as “Chakali Manikanta” and is not known as “Konduru Veera Manikanta”. In the cause title the 6th respondent is described both as Chakali Manikanta and Konduru Veera Manikanta. Petitioner’s case is that the real name of the candidate is Konduru Veera Manikanta and that he is underaged.

8. The parties went to trial and introduced evidence. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and PWs 1 to 4 were examined for the petitioner in the EOP. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked RWs.1 to 3 were examined for the respondents. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that Konduru Veera Manikanta and Chakali Manikanta are one and the same person. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that as per Ex.A1 the Date of Birth of the 6th res