SURENDRA DASH Vs. LAXMIDHAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered on an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being O. J. C. No. 11450 of 2000, confirming the judgment dated 31 -10 -2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri, acting as the Tribunal under the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'),' passed in an election petition being Election Misc. Case No. 318 of 1997, holding the election of the appellant as the Councillor of Ward No. 28 to the Puri Municipal Council as invalid on the ground of violation of the provisions of section 16(1)(xvii) of the Act.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an election petition under section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Puri, alleging therein that although the appellant was declared elected as the Councillor of Ward No. 28 to the Puri Municipal Council in the election held on 11 -7 -1997 having secured the highestnumber of votes polled, his election was invalid because he had more than two children and as such was disqualified under section 16(1) (xvii) of the Act to be elected as a Councillor. It was also alleged that the objection filed by respondent No. 1, i. e., the election petitioner, to the nomination paper of the appellant at the time of scrutiny before the Election Officer, i.e., the Addl. District Magistrate (General), Puri, was rejected and the nomination of the appellant was improperly accepted. The appellant filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the election petition. He categorically denied that his wife Anita Dash gave birth to a son on 2 -6 -1996 at the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri.

(3.) THE aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the present appellant in this Court in an application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India find the learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has rejected the application and confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. The appellant has, therefore, come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge.