JUDGMENT Elections to the Tallapudi Gram Panchayat were held on 02-08-2006. The office of Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat is reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste Woman. The petitioner, the respondent, and eight others filed nominations, for that office. While the petitioner secured 1502 votes, the respondent got 1154 votes. The petitioner was declared elected. 2. The respondent filed a.p.No.860 of 2006 in the Court of Principal District Judge, West-Godavari at Eluru, under Section 22 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to declare that the election of the petitioner herein is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and to consequently direct that, she (respondent) is elected as the Sarpanch. It was pleaded that the petitioner had resorted to corrupt practices, and that she incurred disqualification, under Section 19(3) of the Act, since her 4th and 5th children were born on 03-06-1995 and 1 0-08-1996, respectively. 3. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the O.P. She denied the allegation as to corrupt practices. So far as the disqualification, under Section 19(3) of the Act, is concerned, she pleaded that her 4th and 5th children were born on 17-08-1991 and 22-12-1993, respectively, and in that view of the matter, the disqualification is not attracted. It was also pleaded that the O.P. is misconceived in law. 4. Through order dated 01-08-2007, the learned District Judge allowed the O.P. and granted the relief, as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. filed by the respondent, was untenable in law. According to him, an election, held under the provisions of the Act, can be challenged only by filing an Election Petition before a Tribunal, constituted under the relevant law, and in no other manner; and still, the District Court, which is not the Election Tribunal, had entertained the O.P. He contends that the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 22 of the Act is confined to the one, to decide whether an elected member had incurred disqualification, under Sections 17 to 20, and even where a finding is recorded to the effect that such member had incurred disqualification, the District Court is not competent to set aside the election, much less, to declare another, as elected. He further submits that on merits also, the Trial Court erred in recording the finding, that the petitioner incurred disqualification. 6. Sri S. Tulasidas, learned counsel for the respondent, raised an objection, as to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that, in the O.P., apart from the petitioner herein, seven others, including the State Election Commission, the Officials who conducted the election of the Gram Panchayat (were impleaded); and the petitioner omitted to implead them, in this writ petition. He contends that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, and the findings of fact, recorded after trial; cannot be interfered with. He submits that the District Court, which is specifically conferred with the power to decide the question of disqualification, naturally would possess the incidental power, to issue consequential directions. 7. Before discussing the matter on merits, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, as to maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that all the parties to the O.P., are not impleaded in the writ petition; needs to be dealt with. In the O.P., 8 respondents were impleaded, and the writ petitioner herein is figured as 7th respondent. However, the contest to the petition was only by the petitioner herein. The other respondents in the O.P. are, the State Election Commissioner, District Collector, Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Stage-I Election Officer, Stage-II Election Officer, and the Gram Panchayat. Though it would have been better for the petitioner, to have impleaded in this writ petition, all the parties, that figured in the O.P., it cannot be said that failure to implead them would render the writ petition, untenable. 8. Here itself, an aspect, which has a direct bearing on this very issue; needs to be taken note of. It is not in dispute that, as many as 10 candidates, including the petitioner and the respondent, contested the election. The respondent has chosen to implead the petitioner alone, in the O.P., and the remaining 8-contestents were omitted. The question, as to whether it was permissible to challenge the result of an election, in an O.P. filed under Section 22 of the Act, would be discussed, a bit later. The respondent has chosen to implead the petitioner alone, in the O.P., and the remaining 8-contestents were omitted. The question, as to whether it was permissible to challenge the result of an election, in an O.P. filed under Section 22 of the Act, would be discussed, a bit later. The O.P. was presented with the following prayer: "The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass Decree/Order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents- (a) "Decree/Order declaring that the Declaration of the Election of the 7th respondent-Smt. Erlapati Veera Lakshmi to the post of Sarpanch/ President of the 8th respondent - Tallapudu Gram Panchayat on 2-8-2006 by the respondents 1 to 6 on 2-8-2006 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law; (b) for a consequential declaration that the petitioner-Smt. Guda Haritha Rani is declared elected to the post of Sarpanch/President of the 8th respondent- Tallapudi Gram Panchayat; (c) for costs of the petition; and (d) grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems and just under the above circumstances of the case". 9. The respondent had not only prayed for the relief of setting aside the election of the petitioner, but also the one, to declare her, to have been elected. Even where an election petition is filed in a proper form, in a correct Forum, the relief, that the petitioner therein be declared as elected; can be claimed only by impleading all the contestants, for the office, irrespective of the number of votes, secured by them. Therefore, the O.P. suffered from a defect of greater degree, than the writ petition, in the context of failure to implead necessary parties. 10. Apart from urging the ground that the petitioner herein, incurred the disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act, the respondent has also alleged corrupt practices, in the election. The Trial Court no doubt, framed points for its consideration. However, they do not reflect the actual controversy, that can be traced to Section 19(3) of the Act. 11. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. Apart from that, the documents, marked as Exs.X-1 to X-4, were also taken on record. 11. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. Apart from that, the documents, marked as Exs.X-1 to X-4, were also taken on record. After discussing the matter at length, the trial Court granted the relief, as prayed for. 12. In view of the extensive submissions made on behalf of the parties, it needs to be examined as to whether the O.P. filed by the petitioner was maintainable in law. It has to be mentioned here, that the writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission, on 08-08-2007. The petitioner filed a review W.P.M.P.No. 23942 of 2007, by urging various contentions. After hearing the parties, at length, the learned Judge, who dismissed the writ petition, recalled the order dated 08-08-2007. Though extensive discussion was undertaken, touching on the maintainability of the O.P., it was made clear that it is limited to the one of recalling of the order dated 08-08-2007. 13. The Act stipulates different circumstances under which, an individual is, either for contest in an election, or to hold an elected office. These are contained in Sections 17(2) and 20 of the Act. Subsection (3) of Section 19 of the Act attaches disqualification to a person, who has more than two children. Certain exceptions are provided. The provision reads as under: "Section 19(3): A person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as member: Provided that the birth within one year from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 hereinafter in this section referred to as the date of such commencement of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of this section: Provided further that a person having more than two children (excluding the child if any born within one year from the date of such commencement) shall not be disqualified under this section for so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase: Provided also that the Government; may direct that the disqualification in this section shall not apply in respect of a person for reasons to be recorded in writing". 14. 14. To be precise, the disqualification would get attracted, if a child, beyond two, is born, after 30-04-1995, unless exemption is granted by the Government. Disqualification of one form or the other; it incurred, would constitute a ground, (a) for rejection of nomination of the candidate, on the eve of election, (b) to set aside the election of a candidate, when challenged in an Election Petition, and (c) to declare that such a person is not entitled to remain in office. 15. The Act provides for adjudication of election disputes by a Tribunal under the relevant provisions of the Act. Adjudication, as to disqualification and a challenge to the result of an election is to take place, before a Forum, i.e. District Court, as provided for under Section 22 of the Act. While the instances mentioned in (a) and (b), referred to above, can genuinely constitute the subject-matter of an election petition, the one, mentioned in (c) would constitute the subject-matter of the petition under Section 22 of the Act. 16. Though the parameters for adjudication as to disqualification of candidates are same in an Election Petition before a Tribunal, an application in a Court, under Section 22, the circumstances under which, the respective fora can be approached, and the nature of relief that can be granted by them, are substantially different. For instance, an election petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of results, and it is to be presented before a forum specially constituted and designated therefor. The O.P. under Section 22, on the other hand, can be filed at any point of time. An Election Tribunal can not only record a finding, as to disqualifications, under Sections 17 to 20, in the context of election, but also grant the consequential relief of setting aside the election and pronounce that the petitioner, before it, is declared as elected. The District Court, under Section 22 of the Act, however, cannot grant any consequential relief, even if it holds that an elected candidate incurred disqualification. 17. Further, it is necessary to refer to Section 233 of the Act, and Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The District Court, under Section 22 of the Act, however, cannot grant any consequential relief, even if it holds that an elected candidate incurred disqualification. 17. Further, it is necessary to refer to Section 233 of the Act, and Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. They read as under: "Sec.233: Election Petitions:- No election held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf". "Article.243-O: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State". 18. From a perusal of these two provisions, it becomes clear that an election, held under the Act, cannot be called in question, except by an election petition. The Election Tribunals are constituted for various parts of the State, and detailed Rules are framed, prescribing the procedure to be followed, in relation thereto. 19. The contents of the O.P. filed by the respondent, and in particular, the prayer, fit into an Election Petition. As a matter of fact, it was presented within the time, stipulated for an election petition. However, the filing was into a wrong Forum. The petitioner did exactly, what Sections 233 of the Act, and Article 243-O of the Constitution, have prohibited. 20. A serious attempt is made by the counsel for the respondent, to convince this Court, that the O.P was strictly the one, which accords with Section 22 of the Act, and in that view of the matter, the District Court did have the jurisdiction, to pronounce upon the disqualification, incurred by the petitioner. It hardly needs any mention that, the prayer in the proceedings presented before the Courts, or Tribunals, constitutes one of the vital parts. It hardly needs any mention that, the prayer in the proceedings presented before the Courts, or Tribunals, constitutes one of the vital parts. It is the purport of the prayer, that would have a bearing upon the provisions of law, that get attracted to the adjudication, the period of limitation for seeking the relief, the Forum before which, the proceedings must be instituted, the Court fee, that must be paid, and other ancillary matters. The exact nature of the proceedings can be discerned only by analyzing the prayer therein, with reference to the relevant provisions of law. The pleadings that supply the foundation or justification for the prayer, virtually become secondary, in this context. In large number of enactments, provisions are made not only for adjudication of disputes arising out of them by specially constituted Courts, Tribunals, or agencies, but also ousting the jurisdiction of the other Courts, as regards such matters. The provisions extracted above, fall into this category. 21. Since the Act constituted the Election Tribunals for adjudication of election disputes, and prohibited the challenge to election in any other manner, there was no basis for the respondent, to have challenged the election of the petitioner, in an O.P., filed under Section 22 of the Act, before a District Court. 22. There would have been some scope, for treating the O.P., as a mere application to declare that the petitioner herein had incurred disqualification under Section 19(3), had the prayer been confined to its first limb, duly giving some margin to the language employed therein. However, the respondent, did not make any secret of her intention, to challenge the election of the petitioner herein, as is evident from the other limb of the prayer. She not only wanted the election of the petitioner be declared as illegal and arbitrary, but also to pronounce that, she is declared as elected. The Tribunal has also proceeded on the same lines, and granted the relief as prayed for. In Mellimi Lakshmikantam v. Election Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, West-Godavari at Eluru 2008 (1) ALT 388 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this Court held that an election dispute, even arising out of disqualification under Sections 17 to 20 of the Act, can not be raised under Section 22 of the Act. 23. In Mellimi Lakshmikantam v. Election Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, West-Godavari at Eluru 2008 (1) ALT 388 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this Court held that an election dispute, even arising out of disqualification under Sections 17 to 20 of the Act, can not be raised under Section 22 of the Act. 23. It does not appear that the attention of the Tribunal was drawn to Section 233 of the Act and Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that the petitioner did not raise the issue, so pointedly, the District court does not get jurisdiction, by acquiescence. It hardly needs any emphasis that, jurisdiction, which is otherwise barred; cannot be conferred by consent of parties. Therefore, the O.P. filed by the respondent is banned under Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India and Section 230 of the Act. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (5) ALT 19 (SC) = (2003) 6 SCC 675 , in support of his contention, that the findings recorded by the Subordinate Courts, on facts, cannot be interfered with, in writ petition, in the instant case, it is manifest that the District Court patently lacked jurisdiction. Hence, the ratio in the said judgments does not apply. 25. At one stage, this Court thought of remanding the matter to the Trial Court, to enable the respondent to undertake necessary amendments, to bring it within the purview of Section 22 of the Act, particularly in view of the fact that there is (sic. is no) limitation for initiation of proceedings under that section. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that his client is not interested in pursuing such a course, and invited a decision on merits, here itself. Once it is found that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction, to entertain the O.P., as presented before it, there is no alternative, except to set aside the order passed therein. 26. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.