Judgment This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the judgment dated 09.07.2010 in O.P.No.1049 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam. I have heard Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. Respondent No.1 is an elected member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District from Peruvancha MPTC. On the complaint given by the unsuccessful candidate, the petitioner has issued a show cause notice to respondent No.1 calling upon him to show cause why he cannot be declared as disqualified in view of his continuing as a Director of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Korlagudem. Respondent No.1 submitted his explanation and before any order was passed, he approached the District Court, Khammam under Section 22 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1994 (for short ‘the Act’) raising a dispute on his alleged disqualification. The District Court, after contest by the parties, allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 and held that the latter has not incurred any disqualification. Questioning this order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Mandal Parishad, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the District Court committed an error in holding that respondent No.1 has not incurred any disqualification. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel with reference to the material on record. Section 18 of the Act prescribes disqualification of certain office holders. This provision reads as under: “No village servant and no officer or servant of the Government of India or any State Government or of a local authority or an employee of any institution receiving aid from the funds of the Government and no office bearer of anybody constituted under a law made by the Legislature of the State or of Parliament shall be qualified for being chosen as or for being a member of a gram panchayat.” The sole basis on which respondent No.1 is alleged to be disqualified is that being a Director of PACS, he is an office bearer and, therefore, he cannot hold any of the offices including MPTC under the provisions of the Act. The District Court, having referred to the provisions of the Act and Rule 22(12) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’), held that the Director of PACS is not an office bearer and, therefore, he has not incurred any such disqualification. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in the case, it is necessary to consider Rule 22(12)(a) of the Rules, which is as follows: Election of Office Bearers: (a) The election of office bearers of the society shall be held in the registered Head Office of the society. As soon as the members of the managing committee have been elected, the election officer, notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society issue a notice, convene a meeting of the newly constituted Managing Committee for the purpose of election of President or Vice-President, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, Secretary or other office bearers of the society, by whatever name they are called. This meeting shall be held not later than three (3) days from the date of election of the managing committee. The proceedings of such election of other office bearers shall be recorded in the minutes book of the society. From the above reproduced rule, it is evident that a distinction is made between a newly constituted Managing Committee and the office bearers. All the members of the Managing Committee are not treated as the office bearers and it is only the President or Vice-President, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, Secretary or the other office bearers of the Society by whatever name they are called, who are treated as the office bearers. Except pleading that by getting elected as the Director to PACS respondent No.1 has become an office bearer, no material was placed by the petitioner before the District Judge to show that respondent No.1 falls in anyone of the descriptions of the office bearers contained in Sub-Rule (12)(a) of Rule 22 of the Rules. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or error committed by the District Court in holding that respondent No.1 has not incurred any disqualification in terms of Section 18 of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, W.P.M.P. No.6767 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.