ITISHREE SAMAL Vs. BISHNU PRIYA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 28.3.2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in Election Misc. appeal no. 54 of 2008 confirming the judgment dated 26.9.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhadrak in Election Misc. Case No. 121 of 2007 wherein he allowed the election petition and the election of the writ petitioner was declared illegal and void.

(2.) THE present opp. party was the election petitioner and the petitioner was the opp. party in Election Misc. Case No. 121 of 2007. As per the case of election petitioner, she along with opp. party and two others contested for the office of Sarpanch of Guamal Gram Panchayat in the last election. The said office was reserved for women candidate belonging to Socially and Economically Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as "S.E.B.C."). Opp. party was born in a Karana family and as such she was Karana by caste, which does not come under S.E.B.C. category and as such she was not duly qualified to contest the election. Her father Prafulla Chandra Mohanty was a native of village Tangi, but migrated to Puri town around 20 years back. At present, he resides in Bhoodan Nagar, Penthakata under Sea Beach Police Station of Puri town. On 15.1.2007 at about 1.30 P.M. opp. party filed her nomination paper falsely stating that she belonged to Baishya caste. The petitioner made objection to it at the time of scrutiny, but the Returning Officer did not pay any heed to it and illegally accepted her nomination paper. It is the further case of election petitioner that an application was made to the Tahasildar, Tihidi to issue a caste certificate in favour of opp. party and the Tahasildar on enquiry came to know that she is the daughter of Dr. Prafulla Chandra Mohanty, who is practicing at Puri town. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Tihidi sent information in his letter dated 21.2.2007 to the Tahasildar Puri. The concerned Revenue Inspector under Puri Tahasildar made enquiry regarding the caste of Dr. Prafulla Chandra Mohanty vis -a -vis that of the opp. party. In his statement before the R.I. Dr. Mohanty admitted to be the father of opp. party and further stated that they belonged to Karan caste. The opp. party won in the election, so the election misc. case.

(3.) ON the basis of above pleadings of the parties learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhadrak framed 7 issues. To prove her case, election petitioner examined herself as P.W. no.1 and did not prefer to examine any other witness. On the other hand, Opp. party examined 5 witnesses including herself as O.P.W.no.1. Both the parties also adduced some documentary evidence. After assessing the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) held that opp. party is the daughter of Dr. Prafulla Mohanty son of Sadhu Mohanty of Puri and that she is Karan by caste and accordingly allowed the election misc. case and declared the election of opp. party to the office of sarpanch of Guamal G.P. as void.