SURENDRA DASH Vs. LAXMIDHAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 31.10.2000 passed by the District Judge, Puri, in Election Misc. Case No. 318/97 whereunder the election of the petitioner as a Councillor of Puri Municipal Council has been quashed on the ground of violation of the provisions contained in Section 16 (l)(xvii) of the Orissa Municipal Act.

(2.) ELECTION to Puri Municipal Council was held on 11.7.1997. The petitioner was declared as a Councillor from Ward No. 28. Opposite party No. 1 filed an election petition before the District Judge on the allegation that present petitioner has more than two children and as such as disqualified Under Section 16 (1) (xvii) of the Orissa Municipal Act. The petitioner had filed objection denying the allegation made in the election petition. The District Judge (Tribunal) has found that the present petitioner had more than two children on the appointed date and as such was disqualified. The said decision is being challenged in the present writ application.

(3.) IN my opinion,.none of these aforesaid contentions can be countenanced. The main question raised in the election petition was as to whether the present petitioner had more than two children by the appointed date. The entries in the birth register are only materials to be utilized either in support of such allegation or to disprove such allegation. Law is well stated that a party has to plead the material facts on the basis of which he seeks relief. The party has to plead only the material facts and not the evidence in support of or in disproof of such facts. The question as to whether any of the entries in the birth register were genuine or not is a matter which was required to be gone into by the District Judge for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of such entries. It was not a material fact required to be pleaded in the petitioner.