PRASANT ADITYA PATRA Vs. DEBENDRA KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners is the elected Chairman of Balipadar Panchayat Samiti. His election is assailed by the opposite party in consonance with Rule 45(b) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti (Conduct of Enquiry by the District Judge into the allegation or doubt about disqualification of members) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be called as "1973 Rules"). In course of such proceeding, no witness was examined, but then a petition was filed on 17.7.2009 to mark certain documents. The said petition, it appears, was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, on the basis of an oral prayer made, the District Judge permitted respondent No. 1 to exhibit four documents. The said order was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11179 of 2008. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 28.10.2009. After taking note of different provisions of 1973 Rules, more particularly, Rule 8 of the said Rules, the Hon'ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Rule 45(b) of the Panchayat Samiti Act are summary in nature and strict -provisions of CPC or the Evidence Act should not be adhered to. The said observation gets fortified from the decision in the case of Soneswar Borah v. Nagen Neog and Ors., 1987 AIR(Gau) 11 and has also been reiterated in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., 2005 4 SCC 480 wherein the Supreme Court after discussing the facts in extenso has observed:

(2.) The Hon'ble Single Judge after discussing the facts and circumstances and after going through the documents, which were marked as exhibits, came to the conclusion that one of the documents issued by the Public Relation Officer did not satisfy the test, consequently, the writ petition was partly allowed and out of the four documents, Hon'ble Single Judge directed that three documents shall be marked as exhibits, but the letter issued by the Public Relation Officer should not be marked as exhibit. The said order is assailed in this writ appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that the list of documents along with the application filed by the appellant having been rejected, the District Judge acted illegally with material irregularity in exhibiting those documents and the said fact was not kept in mind by the Hon'ble Single Judge.