SAHADEV GIRI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 3.8.2013 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, O.P.2 in G.P.(Disqualification) Case No. 1/2012 (Annexure -1) declaring the petitioner disqualified Clauses (t) and (v) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short, "the Act") to become Ward Member in respect of ward No. 3 under Hatbadra Grama Panchayat of Kusumi Block in the district of Mayurbhanj is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The disqualification proceeding against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of a petition filed by O.P.4. The allegations are that the petitioner had begotten a third child after the cut off date and that he was in arrear of rent payable by him to the Grama Panchayat.

(2.) THE petitioner filed his show cause reply after receipt of notice contending that he has not begotten a third child and that such third child, who had been abandoned in a river bed, was recovered by him and was brought up as a foster child, and therefore, he has not incurred any disqualification dues under Clause (v) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. With regard to he petitioner's default in paying the arrear rent in respect of the shop room allotted in his favour by the Grama Panchayat, it was stated by him in the show cause reply that in view of pendency of a civil suit at Rairangpur between the Grama Panchayat and one Mahendra Majhi with regard to ownership over the land, on which the short room stands, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat did not accept the rent from the petitioner even though he offered to him, and therefore, he cannot be said to be in arrear of dues to the said Grama Panchayat, as contemplated under Clause (t) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act.

(3.) MR . Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order has raised the contention that the report of the B.D.O., Kusumi, on which much reliance has been placed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, having not been served on the petitioner, he was not in a position to know about its contents, and therefore, he was unable to meet them, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In this respect, he has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Pabani Gajendra vrs. State of Orissa & Others: : 2005 (II) OLR - 686.