LPA Vs. MANAS RANJAN SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN assailment is the judgment and order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2803 of 2013 thereby declining to sustain the appellant/writ petitioner's impugnment of the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur in Election Misc. Case No. 16 of 2012 rejecting his impeachment of the maintainability of respondent No. 1's petition as not being presented in accordance with Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 88 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Election Rules, 1965 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) THE facts in bare minimum inevitably essential for the present adjudication are that the present appellant along with respondent No. 1 herein had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Udayanathpur Grama Panchayat (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Grama Panchayat') under Bari block in the district of Jajpur in the year 2012. In the battle of hustings, the appellant/writ petitioner was returned elected. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 1 filed the Election Petition Case No. 16 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur being the Election Tribunal under the Act questioning the appellant's eligibility as a candidate contending that he was disqualified for the post of Sarpanch as he is the father of three children born after the year 1995. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, though the election petition was presented by the respondent No. 1 on 6.3.2012, after the publication of the results on 21.02.2012, it was not accompanied by the statutory deposit as security for costs in terms of Section 31 of the Act and thus the petition was clearly not maintainable in law. He has averred that the challan for deposit of amount of Rs. 150/ - towards security for costs was in fact filed on 6.4.2012 i.e. after a month of filing of the election petition, which was thus apparently barred by time. After receiving the notice of the Election Petition, as the appellant has asserted, he filed an application before the Election Tribunal seeking dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that the same was not accompanied by the security for costs of Rs. 150/ - as enjoined in Section 31 of the Act. The learned Election Tribunal, however, by order dated 6.11.2012 dismissed the said application on the ground that the plea involved mixed questions of law and fact and could not be decided before trial. Having unsuccessfully impugned the same before the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner is in appeal.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, did notice that the election petition was filed on 6.3.2012 with a challan to deposit the amount towards security for costs and that the entry with regard to the said deposit was made on 6.4.2014. It was thus held that Election Petition could not be construed to be delayed. The decision of the learned Election Tribunal was thus sustained.