DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in w. P. No. 17871 of 2003 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) WRIT Petitioner is appellant in Writ appeal No. 1790 of 2003 and respondent no. 2 impleaded in the writ petition is appellant in W. A. No. 1537 of 2003. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to by their status in the Writ Petition. ( 3 ) FACTS in brief are that the writ petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Mathukumalli gram Panchayat, Savalyapuram Mandal, guntur District in 1988 and continued as such till 1995. In the fresh elections held in the year 2000, he was again elected as sarpanch of Gram Panchyat. It appears that the 2nd respondent and some other members submitted a complaint against the petitioner to the Commissioner of Panchayat raj, Hyderabad, who directed the District panchayat Officer, Guntur to conduct an enquiry. On 31-12-2002, the District panchayat Officer issued a notice to the petitioner stating that four surcharge certificates have been issued against him for a total sum of Rs. 38,148. 14 p for causing loss to the properties of Gram Panchayat apart from misappropriating funds by him, therefore, the petitioner had incurred disqualification as per Section 14 (6), 19 (2) (i) and 20 (a) of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified as Sarpanch of the gram Panchayat. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the showcause notice, the petitioner on 3-2-2003 submitted a detailed explanation denying allegations and asserting that he had not incurred any disqualification as mentioned in the notice. He also pleaded that the surcharge certificates were not valid in law and disputed that he had incurred any disqualification under any of the provisions of the Act and pointed out that such a dispute as regards disqualification has to be referred to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of the Gram panchayat is situated for decision under section 22 of the Act and thus requested the district Panchayat officer to have the dispute referred to the District Judge for appropriate adjudication. The said reply to the showcause notice is stated to have been received by the 1st respondent. It appears that without getting adjudication on the point by the District Judge, 1st respondent on 7-8-2003 passed an order observing that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 19 (2) (i) read with Section 14 of the Act. Questioning the said action of 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition to have the order-dated 7-8-2003 set aside. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge by the order impugned in the appeals, dismissed the writ petition holding that Section 22 of the Act confers powers on the District Court to adjudicate dispute as to whether a member of a Gram Panchayat had incurred disqualification or not. Having regard to the language employed in the section, according to the learned Judge, intimation of disqualification operates automatically with the communication thereof to the concerned member but the operation of the intimation can be stalled only by approaching the district Court as provided under Section 22 of the Act. Proceedings to challenge the intimation before the court can be initiated either by the concerned member or by the executive authority. In order to enable the executive authority to initiate such steps there must exist a resolution of the Gram panchayat or a direction from the commissioner. Therefore, according to the learned single Judge, two courses were open to the petitioner, (i) either to approach the District Court himself or (ii) to await for the reference by the executive officer which in turn has to be on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat or direction by the Commissioner. Learned single Judge thus declined to interfere with the impugned order leaving it open to the petitioner to workout his remedies under section 22 of the Act treating the impugned orders dated 7-8-2003 to be an intimation to him of disqualification and thus dismissed the Writ Petition. ( 6 ) THE aforementioned order is challenged by the 2nd respondent on the ground that on receipt of the intimation about disqualification the writ petitioner failed to avail of the remedy in having the dispute resolved by approaching the District Judge within two months from the date of receipt of such intimation. As such, he ought not to have been granted any liberty by the learned single Judge to approach the District Judge. As such, he ought not to have been granted any liberty by the learned single Judge to approach the District Judge. It was contended that as the petitioner had failed to seek adjudication within the time prescribed under Section 22 of the Act, after he had received the intimation from the district Panchayat Officer, it is deemed that the allegation against him that he had incurred disqualification had become final and thus there was no question of reserving liberty to him to approach the District Judge and the District Panchayat Officer was justified in having passed the order impugned in the writ petition. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has questioned the impugned decision on the ground that once the learned single Judge had come to the conclusion that it was only on adjudication by the court that disqualification becomes operative; it was incumbent on the part of the court to have set aside the impugned order. ( 8 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and been taken through the record. ( 9 ) FACTS are not in dispute that the petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and for the first time on 31-12-2002, the District Panchayat Officer, guntur gave intimation to him informing of the allegations that due to non-payment of the amounts detailed in surcharge certificates for the previous term, when the petitioner had acted as Sarpanch of the panchayat, he had incurred disqualification. In the notice dated 3-2-2003 it is stated that following the complaints made by the Upa sarpanch, members and villagers of the gram Panchayat, the Commissioner by his memo-dated 23-11-2002 had directed the district Panchayat Officer to probe into the matter. The information had revealed that there were four surcharge notices dated 8-9-1999, 2-1-1999 and 22-1-2000 against which no appeal had been preferred by the petitioner within the prescribed period, therefore, notice was being issued to him based upon the four surcharge certificates for a total sum of Rs. 38,148. 14 p for causing loss to the properties of the Panchayat apart from misappropriating funds for which he alone was responsible, that he will be disqualified as member under sections 14 (6), 19 (2) (i) and Section 20 (a) of the Act. By this intimation, levelling the allegations aforementioned the petitioner was called upon the showcause within fifteen days as to why he be not disqualified as Sarpanch. By this intimation, levelling the allegations aforementioned the petitioner was called upon the showcause within fifteen days as to why he be not disqualified as Sarpanch. To this intimation, the petitioner filed his reply dated 3-2-2003 questioning the legality and validity of surcharge certificates, denying any loss having been caused by him or alleged misappropriation of funds and pointing out that since a dispute had arisen as regards the disqualification the only course open was to have such dispute resolved under section 22 of the Act by referring the matter to the District Judge having jurisdiction, for decision. The said dispute was not got adjudicated upon either by the petitioner or by any other member of authority. On 7-8-2003 the order impugned in the writ petition was issued that since the petitioner had failed to pay the surcharge amounts, therefore, he had incurred disqualification under Section 19 (2) (i) read with Section 14 of the Act and further informing him that he had ceased to hold the Office of Sarpanch with immediate effect Consequently on 30-8-2003 an order was passed by the district Panchayat Officer under Section 26 of the Act notifying that Upa Sarpanch shall exercise the power and perform the functions of the Sarpanch until a new sarpanch assumes Office and to operate the funds of Gram Panchayat. ( 10 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is the effect of failure on the part of the Member/ sarpanch receiving intimation of the allegations as regards his disqualification to seek adjudication of the dispute before the district Court having jurisdiction within the stipulated period of two months and whether such failure will have the effect of automatically disqualifying the Member/ sarpanch. ( 11 ) ANDHRA Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) is a comprehensive Act enacted after construction (Seventy Third Amendment) act, 1992 for the purpose of constitution, administration and working of the Panchayat raj institutions in the State of Andhra pradesh. Section 4 deals with constitution of gram Panchayats for villages and their incorporation. ( 11 ) ANDHRA Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) is a comprehensive Act enacted after construction (Seventy Third Amendment) act, 1992 for the purpose of constitution, administration and working of the Panchayat raj institutions in the State of Andhra pradesh. Section 4 deals with constitution of gram Panchayats for villages and their incorporation. It provides that a Gram panchayat shall be deemed to have been constituted for a village on the date of publication of notification under Section 3 in respect of the village and the Special Officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 143 shall make arrangements for the election of the members and of the sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Section 13 deals with term of office of members saying that the term of office of members elected at ordinary elections shall be five years. Similarly Section 14 deals with election and term of office of Sarpanch saying that there shall be a Sarpanch for every gram panchayat, who shall be elected in the prescribed manner, and save as otherwise expressly provided in or prescribed under the Act, the term of Office of Sarpanch shall be five years from the date of appointment. Sub-section (6) of section 14 says that the provisions of sections 18 to 22 shall apply in relation to the Office of the Sarpanch as they apply in relation to the Office of an elected member of the Gram Panchayat. Section 17 lays down the qualifications for election as a member of a Gram Panchayat and sections 18 to 20 deals specifically with the disqualifications of candidates/members. Section 18 provides for disqualification of certain office holders for being chosen as members of a Gram Panchayat. Section 19 enumerates the condition on which a person can be considered as disqualified for being chosen as member. Section 19 (1) lays down disqualification of a person who has been convicted by a Criminal Court for an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1995 or for an offence involving moral delinquency. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 19 lays down other disqualifications whereunder a person can be considered disqualified for being chosen as a member. Section 20 enumerates post election disqualfications. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 19 lays down other disqualifications whereunder a person can be considered disqualified for being chosen as a member. Section 20 enumerates post election disqualfications. Distinction between section 19 and 20 is that while Section 19 prohibits a person from being chosen as member of the Gram Panchayat if such person suffers from any of the disqualfications enumerated therein, section 20 provides for cessation if any member incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 20. Opening part of section 20 says that subject to provisions of section 22, a member shall case to hold office in the eventualities as enumerated in various clauses thereof. ( 12 ) WE are concerned in this case as to the true interpretation to be given to section 22, which constitutes District Court as the forum to adjudicate any matters relating to disqualfications and it will be relevant at this stage to extract the other provisions which might require to be referred to by us, namely, the disqualification for which order impugned in the writ petition was passed viz. , sub-section (2) (i) of Section 19, sections 20 and 22 of the Act. 19 (2) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as a member if on the date fixed for scrutiny for nominations for election, or on the date of nomination under sub- section (2) of Section 16 he is (i) in arrears of any dues including the sums surcharged otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity to the gram Panchayat upto and inclusive of the previous year, in respect of which a bill or notice has been duly served upon him and the time, if any specified therein for payment has expired:provided that where any person has paid such dues into the Government treasury or into a bank approved by the government to the credit of the Gram panchayat Fund and obtained a challan or receipt therefor in token of such payment, he shall not be disqualified to become a member of the gram Panchayat on and form the date of such payment. 20. Disqualification of members: subject to the provisions of. 20. Disqualification of members: subject to the provisions of. Section 22, a member shall cases to hold office as such if he, (a) is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 19; (aa) is elected as a member to a ward/office reserved for scheduled Castes or Schedule tribes or backward Classes on the basis of a community certificate and subsequently the said community certificate is cancelled under Section 5 of the andhra Pradesh (Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Classes) Regulation of issue of Community certificates Act, 1993. (b) absents himself from the meetings of the Gram panchayat for a period of ninety days, reckoned from the date of the commencement of his term of office, or of the last meeting which he attended, or of his restoration to office as member under sub-section (1) of section 21, as the case may be, or if within the said period, less than three ordinary meetings have been held, absents himself from three consecutive ordinary meetings held after the said date:provided that in the case of a woman member, a period of not more than four months at a time shall be secluded in reckoning the period of absence aforesaid, if for reasons of physical disability due to advanced stage of pregnancy and delivery, such member absents herself from meetings after giving a written intimation to the executive authority of the date from which she would be absent; ( 13 ) SECTION 21 deals with restoration of members to Office. Section 22 deals with authority to decide questions of disqualifications of members. Section 22 deals with authority to decide questions of disqualifications of members. It reads: 22 (1) Authority to decide questions of disqualifications of members: where an allegation is made that any person who is elected as a member of Gram Panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Section 17, Section 18, section 19 or Section 20 by any voter or authority to the Executive authority in writing and the executive authority has given intimation of such allegation to the member through the District panchayat Officer and such member disputes the correctness of the allegation so made, or where any member himself entertains any doubt whether or not he has become disqualified under any of those sections, such member or any other member may, and the execuexecutive Authority, at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the commissioner shall, within a period of two months from the date on which such intimation is given or doubt is entertained, as the case may be, apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the Office of the Gram panchayat is situated for decision. (2) Pending such decision, the members shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or where not disqualified. (3) Where a person ceases to be the sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a gram Panchayat as a consequence of his ceasing to be a member of the gram Panchayat under Clause fb) of Section 20 and is restored later to his membership of the Gram panchayat under sub-section (2) of section 21, he shall, with effect from the date of such restoration, be deemed to have been restored also to the office of Sarpanch or upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be. ( 14 ) A bare reading and analysis of subsection (1) of Section 22 would show that any voter or authority can make allegation and submits the same in writing to the executive authority that any person elected as a member of Gram Panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under sections 17,18,19 or 20 of the Act. The said executive authority has to give intimation of such allegations to the member through the district Panchayat Officer. The said executive authority has to give intimation of such allegations to the member through the district Panchayat Officer. On receipt of intimation, option is available to the member receiving such intimation of the allegations, in case he disputes the correctness of the allegation that he can have the decision of district Judge obtained on such dispute. Irrespective of receipt of intimation the member when he himself entertains any doubt whether or not he has become disqualified under any of those provisions, he can also have decision obtained by approaching the District Judge. There is a period prescribed that such a member may within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such intimation or entertaining such doubt, as the case may be, apply to the district Judge having jurisdiction over the area, for decision. Such a right is also given to any other member to approach the District judge within the same period for the same purpose. In addition to the member against whom allegations are made or any other member on whom right is conferred by this section to approach the District Judge, there is a duty cast on the executive authority that at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or of the Commissioner he is required to apply to the District Judge for a decision on the allegation so made by any voter or by authority. Pending such decision by the district Judge, the member against whom allegations are made is entitled to act as if he is qualified. The provision is equally applicable to a Sarpanch as well by virtue of section 14 (6) of the Act, ( 15 ) SUBMISSION made on behalf of the writ petitioner is that when allegations are levelled and intimation of the allegations is given to the member or sarpanch and the allegations are disputed by the member or the Sarpanch, it is not at all obligatory on the part of the concerned member or Sarpanch to seek adjudication on the disputes. It is also not obligatory on the part of the member or Sarpanch to apply to the District Judge for adjudication when a doubt is entertained by him whether he has incurred any disqualification or not. It is also not obligatory on the part of the member or Sarpanch to apply to the District Judge for adjudication when a doubt is entertained by him whether he has incurred any disqualification or not. In either of the eventualities, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the concerned member need not approach the District judge for adjudication of the alleged dispute since no action can be taken against such a member on mere allegations. Action can be taken only when there is an adjudication made by the District Court holding that the member or Sarpanch is not qualified or has become disqualified under Sections 17,18, 19 or 20, as the case may be. On failure on the part of the member or Sarpanch to approach the District Judge despite receipt of intimation, it is still open to any other member to seek adjudication from the district Court on the dispute as regards qualification or disqualification on the basis of the allegation made against the member or Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when a direction is given by the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner when such a dispute arises, the executive authority concerned is bound to approach the District Court for adjudication of such dispute. Without any adjudication by District Court, it is impermissible to take any action against the member or Sarpanch since such a member or Sarpanch is entitled to continue as member or Sarpanch for a statutory period of five years as provided under the Act. A sarpanch can be removed from the office only after adjudication by the District Judge and on a finding recorded thereon that the member of Sarpanch is not qualified or has incurred disqualification. A would cease to be Sarpanch in case no confidence motion is successfully carried against him or on adjudication in an election dispute against him. A member or Sarpanch due to mere inaction on his part to seek adjudication on receipt of the intimation of levelling of allegations either by any member or the authority cannot cease to be a member or sarpanch. A member or Sarpanch due to mere inaction on his part to seek adjudication on receipt of the intimation of levelling of allegations either by any member or the authority cannot cease to be a member or sarpanch. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, would submit that once allegation has been made which has been submitted in writing to the executive authority and the executive authority has given due intimation of such allegation to the member, the member on receipt of intimation is bound to approach the district Court within the stipulated period of two months from the date on which the intimation is given to him. In case the concerned member or Sarpanch would dispute the correctness of the allegation and fail to seek adjudication on the allegations, he will automatically cease to hold the Office at the expiry of period of two months. Learned counsel argues that failure on the part of the member to seek adjudication would amount to his admitting the allegations thereby entitling and enabling action to be taken against him and, therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition was justly passed by the authority concerned, since the petitioner despite his having raised the dispute failed to get the dispute adjudicated within two months. Thus by virtue of Section (a) of Section 20, the writ petitioner ceased to hold the office of sarpanch having become disqualified as per section 19 (2) (i) of the Act. ( 17 ) CONSIDERING the scheme of the Act and tno provisions quoted above and considering the submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that submissions made on behalf of the 2nd respondent are misconceived and the impugned action against the writ petitioner has not been taken in consonance with Section 22 of the Act. ( 18 ) SECTION 22 of the Act is an enabling provision insofar as member or Sarpanch or any other member is concerned. It enables them to approach the District Court for a decision after receipt of the intimation of allegations by the member or Sarpanch against whom the allegations are made. It casts no obligation on the member or sarpanch to compulsorily approach the district Court for a decision on mere receipt of intimation of allegation from the executive authority. It enables them to approach the District Court for a decision after receipt of the intimation of allegations by the member or Sarpanch against whom the allegations are made. It casts no obligation on the member or sarpanch to compulsorily approach the district Court for a decision on mere receipt of intimation of allegation from the executive authority. A member or sarpanch may or may not approach the District Court even if he disputes the correctness of the allegation. Allegations are mere allegations and no action can be taken thereupon unless there is adjudication and decision rendered by district Court on such allegations holding that a member or sarpanch is disqualified or has become disqualified under any of the provisions contained under Sections 17 to 20 of the Act. Legislature has deliberately used the words such member or any other member" may within a period of two months apply to District Judge for decision". But, the same provision casts an obligation on the executive authority to apply to District Court for adjudication by District court when Gram Panchayat or commissioner so directs. There may be a case in which a member may himself entertain a doubt that whether or not he has become disqualified under any of the provisions contained under Sections 17 to 20 of the Act. Even in that case, Section 22 enables him to apply to District Judge for a decision within a period of two months from the date of entertaining such doubt. In case the submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2 are to be accepted, it would result in absurdity. Suppose a member or Sarpanch himself entertains a doubt about his qualification or having incurred disqualification and within a period of two months from the date of entertaining such doubt, he fails to seek any decision from District Judge, the result in such a case would be that he would cease to be a member or Sarpanch. In our considered opinion, such an absurd result could not be the legislative intent. Entertaining a doubt is a state of mind, not known to any other person. How such state of mind of a person would lead to such disastrous result on his failure to seek adjudication? In our considered opinion, such an absurd result could not be the legislative intent. Entertaining a doubt is a state of mind, not known to any other person. How such state of mind of a person would lead to such disastrous result on his failure to seek adjudication? Thus, on literal interpretation, it must be held that Section 22 being only an enabling provision conferring right on such member or sarpanch who receives an intimation of allegations of his not being qualified or having become disqualified that within two months he can approach the District Court for a decision. It is only on decision being rendered by the district Court holding that a member or sarpanch is not qualified or has become disqualified, then consequential action can be taken. Section 20 operates automatically that a person or member subject to any disqualification specified in Section 19 and subject to Section 22 such member or sarpanch shall cease to hold office. Opening words of Section 20 "subject to the provisions of Section 22 a member shall cease to hold Office" would rather support the view which we are taking that the disqualifications as specified in Section 19 would operate as a bar against a member or sarpanch to hold the Office only when there is a decision rendered by District Court as envisaged in Section 22 and not otherwise. Section 19 (2) (i) is the disqualification on which the petitioner was held to have incurred disqualification alleging that there is surcharge amounts not cleared by the petitioner or there are amounts due and payable by him for the previous period of office. Whether a member or sarpanch is in arrears of any dues or not is a question of fact. In case it is alleged that after a member or sarpanch has been duly re-elected he is still in arrears and such member or sarpanch would dispute such allegation, it cannot be said that having failed to apply to District court for adjudication, the member or sarpanch would automatically cease to continue as member or sarpanch after expiry of period of two months from the date of receiving of intimation by him. Unless there is a decision on the allegations so made against the member or sarpanch by a adjudicatory authority, which in this case is district Judge, such allegations cannot be used against the member or sarpanch and he would continue to hold the office of member or sarpanch unless removed in accordance with law. The answer to the question posed obviously is in negative. ( 19 ) IN the instant case, admittedly there had been no adjudication and the petitioner also did not seek any decision. Even the gram Panchayat or the Commissioner did not direct the executive authority to seek decision from the District Judge on the allegations so made. In such an event, action impugned could not have been taken against the petitioner. The District Panchayat officer thus exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing proceedings dated 7-8-2003 holding that petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 19 (2) (i) read with Section 14 of the Act or that he had ceased to hold that office of Sarpanch. The said order being void and without jurisdiction, the District panchayat Officer had also no authority or jurisdiction to issue the consequential order dated 30-8-2003 calling upon the 2nd respondent to act as Sarpanch. ( 20 ) IN the view we have taken, the only order that could have been passed in the writ petition would have been to quash and set aside the orders passed by the District panchayat Officer and to leave the matter at that. Learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow Writ Appeal no. 1790 of 2003 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, w. P. No. 17871 of 2003 is allowed and the order of the District Panchayat Officer dated 7-8-2003 and the consequential order dated 30-8-2003 are set aside. W. A. No. 1637 of 2003 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their respective costs