ORDER: The petitioner appears to be busy body. The elections to the Gram Panchayat, Madhapur Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District were held on 06.08.2006. The third respondent was elected as a Sarpanch. The petitioner filed an application before the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Bejjanki, on 27.09.2006 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to know whether the third respondent filed her election expenditure particulars. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, in turn, issued a reply, dated 24.10.2006, to the petitioner stating that except two candidates, by name B.Shyamala and Gajula Laxman, no other candidates, who contested in the election, have submitted their election expenditure particulars. Thereupon, the petitioner gave a representation to the State Election Commission, the first respondent herein, on 13.11.2006 for taking action against the third respondent. Pleading that the third respondent had incurred disqualification to hold the Office of Sarpanch, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8635 of 2007 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no delay on the part of the first respondent in acting upon the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.A.No.749 of 2007. During the course of hearing of the writ appeal, proceedings, dated 31.07.2007, issued by the District Panchayat Officer, were brought to the notice of the petitioner. It was mentioned that the third respondent submitted her election expenditure particulars on 19.09.2006 stating that she incurred the expenditure of Rs.1,800/-. It is stated that the Division Bench of this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the proceedings, dated 31.07.2007, issued by the District Panchayat Officer. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are illegal, erroneous and consequently, direct them to investigate into the matter and to disqualify the third respondent from holding the post for which she was elected. Sri Peri Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the third respondent committed default in complying with the requirement under Section 230-B of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and the first respondent failed to discharge its obligation under Section 19(b) of the Act. Sri Peri Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the third respondent committed default in complying with the requirement under Section 230-B of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and the first respondent failed to discharge its obligation under Section 19(b) of the Act. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the prayer in the writ petition itself is untenable and as of now, no orders were passed by respondents 1 and 2 and still a challenge is made to the so-called orders. Section 230-B of the Act reads as under: Loding of account with the District Election Authority:- Every contesting candidate at an election shall, within forty five days from the date of declaration of the result of the election, lodge with the District Election Authority, an account of his election expenses, which shall be a true copy of the account kept by him, or by his election agent, under Section 230-A. Any candidate, who participates in an election, irrespective of the result, is under obligation to submit the particulars of election expenditure within the stipulated time. The first respondent is conferred with the power to ensure compliance. Section 19(b) of the Act empowers the first respondent to declare a candidate, who fails to comply with Section 230-B of the Act, as ineligible for a period of three years or to have ceased to hold the office. Section 19(b) of the Act reads as under: Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses:- If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person,- (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by or under this Act, and (b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall, after following the procedure prescribed, by order published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette declare him, (i) to be ineligible for a period three years from the date of the said order to contest any election held for any office under this Act; and (ii) to have ceased to hold office; in case he is elected. A perusal of the provision discloses that even where the particulars are not furnished within the time stipulated under Section 230-B of the Act, the first respondent can examine the justification for failure. A perusal of the provision discloses that even where the particulars are not furnished within the time stipulated under Section 230-B of the Act, the first respondent can examine the justification for failure. In other words, if a candidate pleads any justification and the Election Commission is satisfied with that, there would not be any occasion to declare him either as disqualified or to have ceased to hold the office. Section 230-B of the Act, in clear terms, creates an obligation for submission of particulars of election expenditure only to the District Election Authority. For reasons best known to him, the petitioner had approached the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, who does not figure anywhere in the scheme. Without knowing his powers of competence, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer had issued reply, dated 24.10.2006, which became a handle for the petitioner to approach other authorities as well as to file writ petitions. Some uncertainty prevailed even when the writ petition was dismissed. During the course of writ appeal, it clearly emerged from the proceedings of the District Panchayat Officer, dated 31.07.2007, that the third respondent furnished her particulars of election expenditure on 19.09.2006 and that the expenditure was found to be within limits. This must have been drawn a curtain to the controversy. The prayer in the present writ petition is totally untenable and without any basis. In his anxiety to harass the third respondent, the petitioner did not hesitate to challenge the proceedings, which did not exist at all. The sole object appears to be to unseat the third respondent on one pretext or the other. The provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, were grossly misused by him and in a way, the time of this Court was also wasted for an adjudication, which is totally unwarranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed by awarding costs of Rs.3,000/- against the petitioner to be paid to the Gram Panchayat, within one month from today. There shall be no order as to costs.