LAWS(ORI)-2016-3-70

DILLIP KUMAR SAHOO Vs. COLLECTOR AND ORS

Decided On March 29, 2016
Dillip Kumar Sahoo Appellant
V/S
Collector And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the Collector, Puri in G.P. Misc. Case No. 04 of 2012 declaring the petitioner disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Bedapur Grama Panchayat under Gop Block in the district of Puri on 24.02.2012. Opposite party No. 3 filed a complaint and also an additional petition before the Collector, Puri alleging therein that the present petitioner was disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch as he was disqualified under Section 25(1)(h) and (n) of the Orissa Panchayat Act (in short, 'the Act') since he holds office of profit under the State Government and also that he had a subsisting contract with the Government. The petition was registered as G.P. Misc. Case No. 04 of 2012.

(2.) On receipt of notice in the said proceeding, the petitioner filed his show cause stating that prior to his election he had applied for appointment as a Transport Contractor in pursuance to an advertisement made by the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (in short, 'the Corporation') and he was selected as a Transport Contractor after he was elected as Sarpanch and that soon thereafter he submitted an application for cancellation of his Transport Contract which was approved and accepted with effect from 06.05.2012 as per letter of the District Manager of the Corporation as at Annexure-4 and, therefore, he does not suffer from the disqualification as alleged.

(3.) By the impugned order, the Collector, Puri held that after his election as Sarpanch, the petitioner was doing the job of handling and transporting contractor under the Public Distribution System as per order No. 535 dated 19.03.2012 and as such has got pecuniary interest in the contract and, therefore, he was disqualified under Section 25(1)(h) and (n) of the Act for holding the office of Sarpanch. It was also held that it was immaterial whether he has received any remuneration or contractual value for the job/contract.