SRI RAMANIRANJAN DASH Vs. SRI RAJKISHORE DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party.

(2.) The opposite party herein as filed Election Misc. Case No. 98 of 2007 under Sec. 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short 'the Act') before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bhadrak against the writ Petitioner, who is the returned candidate in the election to the post of Sarpanch of Bhagabanpur Gram Panchayat under Dhamnagar Block in the district of Bhadrak, inter alia, pleading that the Petitioner is a defaulter member of Bhadrak Sub -Division House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. and has failed to pay the loan amount. The Petitioner suppressed such material in his affidavit annexed to his nomination paper. It has been further alleged by the opposite party in the Election Petition that at the time of filing of nomination as he did not have authenticated copy to support his allegation made against the Petitioner, the nomination of the Petitioner was accepted and the allegation made by the opposite party was not enquired into. Accordingly, the opposite party pleaded in the Election Petition that the Petitioner was disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat under Sec. 25 of the Act. Written statement has been filed by the Petitioner before the Court below denying the allegation made against him in the Election Petition and specifically stating that he is not a defaulter member of the Bhadrak Sub -Division House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. or that he has suppressed such materials in his affidavit annexed to his nomination paper and he was not disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch. However, it has been stated in the written statement that the Petitioner, who is the opposite party in the Court below appeared to be the Assistant Registrar Co -operative Society, Bhadrak in Dispute Case No. 680 $2003 -04 and contested the claim made against him. On 12.12.2003, the said Assistant Registrar adjourned the case without fixing any date and it was ordered that the date would be communicated later on, but no further communication was made to the Petitioner. It was for the first time the Petitioner learnt about the passing of the order by the Assistant Registrar from the averments made in the Election Petition. Thereupon, he contacted his Advocate, who on enquiry informed the Petitioner regarding disposal of the said, dispute case, upon which the Petitioner made queries the Office of the Assistant Registrar and obtained the certified copy of the order and has filed an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Tribunal. He specifically pleaded that no notice has town served upon him after the order was passed by the Assistant Registrar in the said dispute case and, as such, he was not aware abut passing of the said order and after coming to know of the same, he has challenged the said order in a properly constituted appeal, which is subjudice. It was, therefore, contended in the written statement that no finality can be attached to the order/award passed by the Assistant Registrar in the dispute case.

(3.) During pendency of the Election Case, on behalf of tire election Petitioner (opposite party herein), a notice said to have been served on the present Petitioner was called for and on perusal of the said document, the Petitioner alleged that he could come to know that the signature appearing in the said notice, in support of acknowledgement of the same, is not his signature and the said signature has been forged. The Petitioner, therefore, filed an application, inter alia, making a prayer to send the notice for comparison with the admitted signature of the Petitioner to the handwriting expert. Learned Court below by order dated 08.11.2007 directed that the said petition will be consider at the time of the hearing of the case. When the case was made ready for hearing, the Petitioner, who is the opposite party in life Court below, filed another petition for sending the notice, marked as Ext.4, for comparison with his admitted signature, by a hand writing expert, contending therein that the issue regarding service of notice was the most important issue in the case and the learned Court below by its order dated 23.05.2008 rejected the said petition filed by the Petitioner. The said order has been annexed as Annexure -5 to the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order under Annexure -5, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.