LAWS(ORI)-2008-4-19

PARBATI MAJHI Vs. COLLECTOR

Decided On April 08, 2008
PARBATI MAJHI Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE order dated 1.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Kalahandi in G.P. Case No. 9/2007 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner admittedly contested the Grama Panchayat Election held in the month of February, 2007 and was elected as Sarpanch of Gadiajore Grama Panchayat under Dharmagarh Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kalahandi. The defeated candidate, it appears filed an application before the Collector to initiate a proceeding under Section 26 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not attended the age of 21 years on the date of filing of nomination for the post of Sarpanch. Thus she was not qualified to contest. It appears that the Collector on the basis of such petition registered G.P. Case No. 9/2007 and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause; Thereafter relying, upon the -documents like Xerox copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Government UGME School, Gadiajore and a Xerox copy of birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths and Medical Officer, PHC, Parla produced by opposite party No. 2, came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petition was 22.5.1987 and thus on the date when he filed nomination i.e. on 16.1.2007 he had not attained the age of 21 years. The Collector further held that the petitioner was in the family way and had conceived for the third time at the time of filing of nomination, thus she was disqualified and directed as such. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MR . Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate however submitted that in consonance with Section 26(2) of the Act, the Collector has a suo motu power to initiate a proceeding and as such no irregularity has been committed. But then in the case at hand, the Collector had not exercised his suo motu power, he has entertained a petition filed by a defeated candidate (opposite party No. 2), issued notice and had also accepted the document basing upon which the order was passed. Thus, the submissions made by learned Addl. Government Advocate cannot be accepted.