SURESH KUMAR AZAD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases have been taken up today only for the purpose of deciding whether they are maintainable on the ground that the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (shortly ,the Act') has not provided any forum to challenge the election of the Chairman (or Vice -Chairman, for that matter) of the Samiti, This question would take care of, the question of maintainability because of the two earlier decisions of this Court.The first of these is Maheswar Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 1992 (II) OLR 90, in which it was held that if a forum be available under the statute in question giving a right to get elected, that forum alone has to be taken recourse to and the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to hear the grievance relating to election of the persons concerned on any of the grounds would be ousted. But then, it was pointed out in another Bench decision of this Court rendered in OJC No. 4389 of 1992 (Pitambar Bhoi v. Collector, Kalahandi, decided on 3 -2 -199i) that if no forum be available, this Court can be approached under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) LET us now see whether the Act has provided a forum for challenging the election of the Chairman. To decide this, we have to know how a Chairman is elected under the Act as amended in 1991 pursuant to which amendment the election in the present cases took; place.

(3.) THE aforesaid would show that for becoming a Chairman after the amendment in 1991, a person has to be an elected member of the Samiti specified in Clause (h).