SATYANARAYAN SAMANT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute questioning election of a person as a Member of a Samiti held under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (in short, the 'Act') is to be filed within fifteen days after the day on which the result of the election was announced, in terms of Section 44 -8 of the Act. However, on the petitioner satisfying the Election Commissioner that sufficient cause existed for failure to present the petition within the stipulated period, the Commissioner may condone such failure. As provided in Sub -section (2) of Section 44 -6 of the Act, the Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Samiti is situated is the Election Commissioner. In the case at hand the learned Decided on 17th Jan. 1994, Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Commissioner') held that Kulamani Guru (opp. party No. 6) satisfied him about existence of sufficient cause for delay in presenta - tion of the petition. According to the petitioner, the conclusions of the Election Commissioner are patently unreasonable, and did not flow from appropriate consideration of the materials placed.

(2.) FILTERING out the unnecessary details, the factual position is as follows : Petitioner Satyanarayan Samant was elected in respect of Kiapal Gram Panchayat. while Satrughna Parida (opp.party No. 7) was elected in respect of Puincha Grama Panchayat. Results of the election were declared on 26 -5 -1992. In terms of Sub -section (1) of Section 44 -B, the election dispute if any ought to have been filed on or before 9 -6 -1992, In reality the same was filed by Kulamani Guru (opp. party No. 6) on 30 -10 -1992. Admittedly, therefore, there was a delay of 139 days. According to Kulamani, on account of ailment he was prevented from filing the election petition in time. In support of the plea of ailment, an entry in the out -patient register of Banki Subdivisional Hospital dated 2 -4 -1992 was relied upon. The relevant entry No. 4975 indicates that he was suffering from fever with hepatitis and toximia. Dr. Ganga - dhar Paramguru was examinedd as PW 1 in support of the plea of ailment. He stated that Kulamani was under his treatment between the period from 2 -4 -1992 to 29 -10 -1992. The petitioner (opp. party No. 5 before the Election Commissioner) took a positive stand that Kulamani was in fact not ailing, and had filed nomination on 27 -4 -1992 for the post of Sarpanch of Puincha Grama Panchayat, and also filed the withdrawal form on 21 -5 -1992. On 27 -9 -1992 he has present in the Loka Adalat held at Kalapathar College, Not only that, he was also looking after the agricultural operations. The entry No. 4975 in the register was labelled to be a manipulated one, as there were two entries having the same number on 2 -4 -1992. Certain words were inserted in different ink in the entry on which reliance was placed. In other words the case of the petitioner was that the ailment was a myth, and without any sufficient cause there was delay in presentation of the petition.

(3.) IN support of the application Mr. Parida has strenuously urged that a bare look at the evidence of Kulamani (opp. party No. 6) goes to show that he was not ailing at all much less to render him Immobile. He had himself accepted to have participated in the process of election having filed nomination and withdrawal form on 27 -4 -1992 and 21 -5 -1992 respectively. He also accepted that he was carrying on agricultural operations. With reference to PW 1's evidence it is submitted that clearly entry No. 4975 was written in different inks, but the Ejection Commissioner did not hold it to be so. The learned counsel for Kulamani has, however, supported the conclusions of the Election Commissioner and has submitted that in matters of limitation a liberal approach is called for. According to him, the conclusions of the Election Commissioner have been arrived at after analysis of factual aspects and interference is not called for.