Telangana High Court upholds disqualification of young sarpanch in Asifabad
Telangana High Court upholds RDO order disqualifying an elected but underaged sarpach in Kagaznagar district. HC says RDO is empowered to order disqualification
Hyderabad: Justice E. V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Soyam Sameera, one of the youngest elected sarpanches, challenging her disqualification on the ground that she had not attained the mandatory age of 21 years at the time of filing her nomination.
Sameera, who claimed to be 23 years old, had approached the Court against the March 12 order passed by the Kagaznagar RDOdisqualifying her from the post of sarpanch of Dhorapally village in Asifabad district. The Court held that the statutory scheme under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 provides a specific mechanism for adjudication of election disputes.
Referring to Sections 28 and 242 of the Act, the Court observed that civil courts are barred from entertaining such disputes and that any challenge to election results must be made only by way of an election petition before the competent tribunal. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Judge declined to interfere with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Court also upheld the RDO’s authority saying he was competent to exercise such powers.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the disqualification was arbitrary and contrary to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, and argued that the RDO acted without proper authority by relying solely on photocopies of educational certificates produced by a rival candidate, without verifyiing them with the school authorities. It was further argued that the RDO could not assume the role of an Agency Divisional Officer in a Scheduled Area.
Opposing the plea, the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted that the writ petition was misconceived. Placing reliance on G.O. No. 4, it was contended that the term “Agency Divisional Officer” includes the Revenue Divisional Officer in Scheduled Agency areas. It was further argued that, in view of Section 242 of the Act, the dispute could only be agitated through an election petition.
The rival candidate, who had finished second in the election, supported the disqualification and submitted that the petitioner’s secondary school certificate clearly established that she was below the required age, rendering her ineligible to contest. It was contended that her nomination ought to have been rejected at the scrutiny stage itself. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court clarified that it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the competent forum.
