ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch of Mathukumalli Gram Panchayat, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. He has been issued a notice dated 31-12-2002 directing him to show-cause as to why he should not be treated as having incurred disqualification on account of his failure to remit the amounts to a tune of Rs. 38,148/-, which amount was found to have been misappropriated by him in his previous tenure as Sarpanch. He has submitted an explanation, disputing the same. Taking the same into account, the District Panchayat Officer had issued proceedings dated 7-8-2003 intimating the petitioner that he has incurred disqualification under Section 19(2)(1) read with Section 14 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’)- The petitioner challenges the same.
2. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Manohar Reddy submits that the District Panchayat Officer/first respondent is not conferred with the power to adjudicate the matter, and once the petitioner disputes the allegation as to disqualification, the only course open for him, is to refer the matter to a Civil Court as provided under Section 22 of the Act. It is also his case that till the period of 60 days stipulated under the Act expired, the disqualification cannot operate.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Mr. D. Suderhsan Reddy, learned Counsel for second respondent, submit that the intimation of disqualification is provided under Section 22 of the Act and once the intimation is served on a Sarpanch or a member as the case may be, the disqualification would begin to operate. According to them, the aggrieved person or the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, on the directions of the Gram Panchayat or Commissioner, may refer the matter to the District Court for adjudication in this regard.
4. Through the impugned proceedings dated 7-8-2003 the first respondent had informed the petitioner that he ceased to hold the office of Sarpanch. Issuance of show-cause notice before such an intimation was in compliance with the principles of natural justice. By himself, the first respondent did not undertake any adjudication of the matter. On his being convinced that the petitioner failed to pay the amounts contained in the surcharge certificate, the first respondent intimated the petitioner that he has incurred disqualification under Section 19(2) of the Act. When, the Act, in Section 22 confers the power to adjudicate such disputes only on the District Court, by implication, the first respondent or for that matter, any other authority is precluded from undertaking the adjudication into such aspects. The impugned order is to be treated only as an intimation and nothing more.
5. Having regard to the language employed in the relevant sections, intimation of disqualification operates with the communication thereof. This operation can be stalled only by approaching the District Court, as provided for under Section 22 of the Act. Section 22(2) of the Act provides for the state of affairs to exist, pending adjudication into such disputes. The proceedings to challenge the intimation of disqualification before the Court, can be initiated either by the affected person or by the Executive Authority. For the Executive Authority to initiate such steps, there should exist the resolution of the Gram Panchayat or a direction from the Commissioner. Therefore, two courses are open to the petitioner, viz., either to approach the District Court by himself or to wait for the reference by the Executive Officer, which in turn shall be on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat or direction by the Commissioner.
6. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, at this stage. It is however left open to the petitioner to work out remedies under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, treating the impugned proceedings only as intimation of disqualification.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.