ORDER : 1. In both these Writ Petitions, issue involved is one and the same, as such, they are being taken up for disposal. 2. It is the plea of the petitioners that as a matter of fact, they submitted the statement of election expenditure in compliance with Rule 103(2) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules’), but, respondent No.1 - Telangana State Election Commission, Hyderabad, issued proceedings dated 03.03.2020 disqualifying them from the elected post and from contesting the elections for a period of three (3) years to any post on the ground that there was no statement of election expenditure submitted by them. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 - Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Thangallapalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, it is asserted that he had taken charge on 19.07.2019 and that initially, basing on the web portal, a list of particulars, in which, names of the petitioners were mentioned as the persons who had not submitted the statement of election expenditure, was sent to respondent No.1, thereby, a notice dated 25.11.2019 was issued to the petitioners by respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their statements of election expenditure along with their written explanation on 07.02.2020 stating that they could not file the statement of election expenditure within the stipulated time, since they used to visit the hospitals at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the petitioners in the third week of March, 2020, approached the answering respondent showing receipt dated 11.02.2019 of filing final account of election expenditure and requested him to enquire into the same. Then, he caused enquiry and found the copies of final accounts of election expenditure of the petitioners. Thereafter, he addressed letter dated 03.04.2020 to respondent No.1 explaining the facts and finding the copies of the accounts of election expenditure submitted by the petitioners with a request to cancel the impugned proceedings. It is also asserted that a memo dated 26.03.2020 was issued to the then Senior Assistant, T. Nagaraju, of erstwhile MPDO Office to show the reason for not entering the petitioners’ names in online portal of respondent No.1 in the list of candidates, who had submitted the statement of election expenditure. It is also asserted that a memo dated 26.03.2020 was issued to the then Senior Assistant, T. Nagaraju, of erstwhile MPDO Office to show the reason for not entering the petitioners’ names in online portal of respondent No.1 in the list of candidates, who had submitted the statement of election expenditure. The said Senior Assistant gave explanation on 27.03.2020 that there was lapse on his part in updating the web portal as he is a Cancer patient and in view of series of elections. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had addressed a letter to respondent No.3 - District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla, to verify the veracity of the petitioners’ claim. Then, vide report dated 27.06.2020, respondent No.3 after conducting enquiry reported that as a matter of fact, the petitioners had submitted the statements of election expenditure as claimed by them and there was lapse on the part of the Officer concerned in updating the record and forwarding the same to respondent No.1. 4. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that there is no power conferred on respondent No.1 to review the order passed in terms of Section 23 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and that in response to the show cause notices, the petitioners did not choose to offer explanation and on the contrary, as per the counter-affidavit of respondent No.5, initially, the petitioners submitted that on account of ill-health, the statements of election expenditure were not submitted and further, the report of respondent No.3 is subsequent to the passing of the impugned proceedings. 5. In view of the above narrated situation and as per the pleadings before this Court, as a matter of fact, though the petitioners had submitted the statements of election expenditure along with the explanation dated 07.02.2020, they submitted the statements of election expenditure within the stipulated time. On further enquiry, it was found that as a matter of fact, statements of election expenditure were submitted as far back as on 11.02.2019 i.e., within the stipulated period of 45 days. Inasmuch as the lapse is on the part of respondent No.5, who was officiating at the relevant point of time, in not complying with Rules 103 and 104 of the Rules, the petitioners could not be disqualified in terms of Section 23 of the Act. Inasmuch as the lapse is on the part of respondent No.5, who was officiating at the relevant point of time, in not complying with Rules 103 and 104 of the Rules, the petitioners could not be disqualified in terms of Section 23 of the Act. It may be kept in mind that the petitioners are elected Ward Members of Jillela Gram Panchayat and they are entitled to complete their term of Office as per the scheme of elections. 6. In those circumstances, though respondent No.1 has no review jurisdiction, there being no other alternative remedy for the petitioners and there being patent illegality and error, which is apparent from the record and inasmuch as respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders on account of lapse on the part of its subordinate Officers in furnishing correct data, the impugned orders are set aside and these Writ Petitions are allowed with the further direction to respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the factual aspects emerged in the process of enquiry conducted by respondent No.3. 7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.