MADHAB CHANDRA SWAIN Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails the order dated 15 -4 -1986 passed by the learned Munsif -cum -EIection Tribunal, Kendrapara, in Election Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1984 rejecting an application made by him for summoning P. W. 1, a junior Engineer, for further examination in order to substantiate his case that the opposite party No. 2, who was the sole contestant of the petitioner for the office of the Sarpanch of the Baro Grama Panchayat, had a subsisting contract with the State Government, by getting a document marked 'X' for identification while P. W. 4 was under examination admitted in evidence through P. W. 1 who was said to be competent to identify the writings and signatures of the opposite party No. 2. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the grounds that the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity to prove the document in accordance with law and allowing such an application would cause undue delay in the proceeding and harassment to the opposite party No. 2

(2.) WHILE the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order would cause grave injustice to the cause of the petitioner and would stand as a hindrance to get at the truth, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has reiterated the same grounds taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the application.

(3.) THE extraordinary judisdiction of this Court is exercised in such cases only when the circumstances necessitate such interference and this jurisdiction is to be rarely and in exceptional cases exercised at such interlocutory stages. However, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in AIR 1970 Ori 46, Niranjan Sahu v. Narasu Satpathy and others, an interlocutory order passed under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act is not appealable to the Court of the District Judge Thus, the petitioner has no alternative remedy. In a similar case, this Court exercised its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned order in that case allowing the prayer of the petitioner to re -examine the opposite party No. 1 for further examination. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 S. C. 422, N. T. Veluswami Thovar v. G. Raja Nainar and others. In that case, however, it was held that no interference was called for under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as there was an alternative remedy available by way of appeal.