TIBURAM TANGULU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the notification under Annexure-6 issued by the Election Officer notifying convening of the first meeting of the Zilla Parishad at 9 A.M. of 12.3.2017 for oath taking of the Members of the Parishad elected and also for the election of the President of the Zilla Parishad.

(2.) Undisputed fact involved in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a resident of Chitrakonda in the district of Malkanagiri. He had already held the post of Sarpanch, Member of Panchayat Samiti and once became the Chairman of Kudumulgumma Panchayat Samiti. Presently, the petitioner's constituency comes under Chitrakonda Block by way of Panchayat Raj Department notification under the provisions of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act and the Rules framed thereunder issued on 15.11.2016. State Government under the Panchayat Raj Department published list of constituencies for Zilla Parishad Election in the Malkanagiri district. Petitioner is concerned with the constituency, namely, Chitrakonda-2 being reserved for Scheduled Tribe members. Election as schedule for the post of Members though concluded but no election for the constituency i.e. Chitrakonda-1 and Chitrakonda-2 could be held for the violence taking place in the area and some Maoist activities taking place in the locality even in spite of filing of the nomination by different candidates. It appears, after the election of the Members over except the aforesaid two Constituencies, 13 candidates have been elected from the 13 Zilla Parishad Constituencies, impugned notification under Annexure-6 was issued for convening first meeting of the Zilla Parishad to give oath to the elected member and also for the election of the President of the Zilla Parishad which was scheduled to 11.3.2017. Petitioner by filing the writ petition sought for quashing of the notification vide Annexure-6 so far it relates to election of the President of the Parishad and also sought for issuing a mandamus against the opposite parties to conduct the Zilla Parishad election in respect of Chitrakonda-1 and Chitrakonda-2 constituencies within a stipulated period of time.

(3.) Sri Baug, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to provisions contained under Section 6(A) (1) and (2), Section 8 (a) of the Zilla Parishad Act and Rules 40, 41 and 48 of the Zilla Parishad Rules contended that the election of President of Zilla Parishad in absence of completion of the election of all Zilla Parishad Members cannot be held. Sri Baug further submitted that for non-compliance of the requirements under the aforesaid provisions and particularly for no publication of the resolutions in the official gazette as well as publication required under Section 6 (2) of the Zilla Parishad Act contended that convening a meeting for the election for the post of President at this juncture is not permissible. Referring to provisions contained under Articles 243-M and 243-O of the Constitution of India, Sri Baug, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the restriction contained under Article 243-O shall not apply to the particular Zilla Parishad for its being covered under Article 243-M of the Constitution of India. On the above premises, Sri Baug, learned counsel contended that the petitioner has sufficient reason to ask for intervention of the Court in the matter of convening the first meeting as well as proceeding for the election of the President of the Zilla Parishad and thus requested the Court to interfere in the matter and grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.