NIRMALA BEHERA Vs. COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHURDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kalyanpur G.P. under Bhubaneswar block in the district of Khurda in the last election held during the year 2007. When she was continuing as such, a complaint in writing was made to the learned Collector, Khurda by opp.party No.5 alleging that she had three children and the last child was born on 18.9.1996 and that she was involved in corruption by misusing her position. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Collector registered Election Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 and issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 6.8.2010. As she did not appear on the date fixed, the case was taken up ex-parte.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner admitted to have given birth to a 3rd child, but according to her it was born before the cut-off date. It is her specific case that the 3rd child was born on 10.3.1995. During scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was raised that petitioner was not eligible to contest the election as she begot the 3rd child after the cut-off date. So, she obtained a medical certificate from the Medical Officer of Maidharapara P.H.C, Cuttack on 12.3.1995 in support of delivery of the 3rd child on 10.3.1995. On production of the said document, she was declared to be eligible to contest the election. It is her further case that she received notice in connection with Gram Panchayat Election Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 from the learned Collector to appear before him on 6.8.2010, on receipt of which, she approached learned counsel, Mr. A. Swain to appear on her behalf before the learned Collector. Mr. Swain accepted Vakalatnama and took some plain papers being duly signed by the petitioner and assured her to take care of the case. When petitioner received Annexure-1, she was surprised to know that an ex-parte order was passed against her. So, the writ petition, with prayer to quash the order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the learned Collector, Khurda and Annexure-1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opp.party No.5 in his counter contented that petitioner was aware of the proceeding against her before the learned Collector. She also knew that the case was fixed to 6.8.2010 for hearing, but deliberately she did not appear before the Court. The allegation that Mr. A. Swain, learned counsel took Vakalatnama and duly signed plain papers from the petitioner to appear before the learned Collector in the aforesaid case on her behalf is a myth. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Collector to interfere with in this writ petition. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.