PUNAM PARIDA Vs. SUKANTI SUBUDHI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the District Judge, Khurda in the Election Petition No.43 of 2014 in exercise of power under the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the election petition was filed under Section 88 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 by the present petitioner-the unsuccessful candidate, challenging the acceptance of nomination paper of the return candidate-opposite party no.1 contesting for the post of Corporator from Ward No.18 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Facts further reveal that the petitioner and the opposite party no.1 both filed nomination papers for the post of Corporator for Ward No.18 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation being reserved for women belonging to other backward caste. Petitioner, the unsuccessful candidate filing election petition alleged that the opposite party no.1 the successful candidate filed her nomination paper before the Election Officer stating her name as Sukanti Subudhi, Wife of Gouranga Subudhi of Village-Pandara, Post-Garh Gopinath Prasad, P.S.- Mancheswar, District-Khurda. She again repeated same particulars in the form of affidavit, required to be filed accompanied with the nomination paper enclosing therein the certificate issued by the particular School in support of her educational qualification, identity and also age. The transfer certificate accompanied therein appears to have been obtained from S.N. High School, situated in Patia, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda where the student name has been described as Dhadi Jena, daughter of late Panu Jena of Village/Post-Patia, P.S.-Chandrasekharpur, District-Khurda and her date of leaving the School was shown as 31.05.1988 while she was prosecuting her study in Class-X, whereas the affidavit enclosing the transfer certificate described the candidate passing the examination in the year 1998. Petitioner, therefore, alleged that there is complete difference between the name of the candidate disclosed in the nomination paper, the affidavit appended thereto and the name indicated in the transfer certificate appended in support of the educational qualification of the opposite party no.1. There is also a great difference between the date of leaving the School and the affidavit indicating therein that the private opposite party no.1 had left School in the year 1988 and 1998 respectively. For these serious discrepancies, the petitioner raised the election dispute and claimed that there has been illegal acceptance of the nomination of the opposite party no.1. It is in the above premises, petitioner claimed that the election for the post of Corporator of Ward No.18 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation may be held to be invalid and there may be a direction for fresh election.

(3.) Opposite party no.1 i.e. the elected Corporator on her appearance while seriously objecting the claim of the present petitioner in filing the election dispute contended that the election petition was not maintainable in the eye of law as there is no cause of action to file the same. While refuting the allegations made in the election dispute, the opposite party no.1 stated that she had not suppressed anything in filing the nomination for the post of Corporator from Ward No.18 in as much as Dhadi Jena and Sukanti Subudhi are one and single person. She further claimed that Dhadi is the nick name of Sukanti and as a matter of ordinary practice, during admission in the School, her parents entered her nick name in the School record resulting discrepancy in the School records. It is thus claimed that discrepancy, if any, is not a serious one. Further, for the evidence laid by the opposite party no.1 in the trial proceeding taking note of the indication in the voter list of Bhubaneswar Assembly Constituency, the opposite party no.1 has been able to establish that Dhadi and Sukanti are one. This aspect having been properly understood and accepted by the trial court, the opposite party no.1 claimed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Election Tribunal leaving no scope for interference by this Court in the order vide Annexure-1.