SUCHETA SAMANTA Vs. BIDYUTLATA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment dated 23-6-2010 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13570 of 2008, whereby, the learned single Judge has set aside the judgment and order dated 10-9-2008 passed by the lower appellate Court (District Judge, Dhenkanal) in F.A.O. No. 26 of 2007 and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court (Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Dhenkanal) declaring the election of the opposite party (Appellant herein) as null and void, but declining to affirm that part of the order of the trial Court declaring the writ Petitioner (opposite party herein) as Sarpanch of Digambarpur Grama Panchayat. The learned single Judge has further directed the competent authority to conduct fresh election in respect of the office of Sarpanch of Digambarpur Grama Panchayat expeditiously.

(2.) The limited fact that needs to be noted herein is that, the present Appellant, Sucheta Samanta had been declared elected as "Sarpanch" of Digambarpur Grama Panchayat, which was reserved for "Other Backward Classes Women" candidates only. The election of Sucheta Samanta was challenged by one Bidyutlata Nayak (Respondent), who had also contested in the election and had secured the second highest number of votes, vide Election Misc. Case No. 24 of 2007. The petition was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhenkanal, declaring the election of Sucheta Samanta (Appellant) as null and void and further declaring Bidyutlata Nayak (election Petitioner and Respondent herein) as duly elected candidate and declaring her as Sarpanch of Digambarpur Grama Panchayat.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that the election petition filed by the Respondent was barred by limitation and though the election Petitioner had filed the election petition under Section 31(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same ought not to have been allowed, since the election Petitioner had failed to explain each day's delay in filing of the election petition.