TILATAMA BHATRA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per notification dated 10.1.2002, the State Election Commission, Orissa called upon all the Grama Panchayats in the State to elect Ward Members and Sarpanches for the purpose of constituting the Grama Panchayats. The said notification also set down the schedule of election from the commencement of the issue of the notice by the Election Officer under Rule 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Election Rules, 1965 till publication of the name of the duly elected Naib Sarpanch. What is relevant for our purpose is to note that 22.1.2002, was fixed as the date for scrutiny of nominations under Rule 29 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Election Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and 23 1.2002 was fixed as the date for publication of the list of the validly nominated candidates under Rule 32(1) of the Rules. Withdrawal had to be done by 25.1.2002, and publication of the final list of contesting candidates was to be published on 25.1.2002. The declaration of result of Sarpanch and the Ward Members under Rule 51 of the Rules was to be made on 28.2.2002.

(2.) IN Dahana Grama Panchayat, pursuant to the notification above, three nominations were received by the Election Officer, for election to the office of Sarpanch. At the time of scrutiny on 21.1.2002, one of the candidates withdrew her nomination. The nomination of opposite party No. 3, the second candidate was rejected on the ground that she was unable to read and write Oriya, a qualification prescribed by Section 11 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Thus, the petitioner whose was the third nomination was alone left in the fray. The Election Officer declared the petitioner elected in terms of Rule 31of the Rules on the basis that the nomination of the petitioner was the only valid nomination.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that when, on scrutiny of the nomination papers on 22.1.2002, it was found that the nomination of the petitioner was the only valid nomination, the Election Officer had declared her elected as enjoined by Rule 31 of the Election Rules and once such a declaration of the result is made, the election of the petitioner coutd be called in question only by way of an Election Petition as enjoined by Section 30 of the Act and as prescribed by Section 31 thereof. Counsel submitted that under Rule 92 E of the Election Rules, the State Election Commission had no power to declare or to nullify a concluded election or to nullify a declared result on the ground of any alleged irregularity in the rejection of the nomination paper of one of the candidates. He further submitted that Rule 92 E had no application to the fact situation and Rule 92 E related to maintaining of general fairness in any election and the power could not be used as against individual complaints like the one regarding the rejection of a particular nomination paper. Finally, the learned counsel contended that in any event, the whole process of cancellation was vitiated since at no point of time, the petitioner, who had been declared elected, had any notice of the complaint of the candidate whose nomination was rejected; the enquiry that was allegedly conducted, the report submitted on such enquiry and the decision that was belatedly taken by the State Election Commission.