PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of suspension passed by the competent authority on 30.10.2018, appearing at Annexure-1.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Khannagar Grama Panchayat under Dasarathpur Block in the election held in March, 2017. Petitioner claimed to have the support of the opposite party. Assailing the order at Annexure-1, the petitioner alleged that for the political opposition of the petitioner to the ruling party in the State, the candidates sponsored by the ruling party after losing the election in connivance and with aid of the government officials hatching conspiracy with ulterior motive in issuing the suspension order. On the premises that the suspension order is not disclosing any reason of suspension, further being a cryptic and vague order in absence of any disclosure on satisfaction of either of the grounds enumerated under Section 100(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. Therefore, Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the minor suspension order involved herein, taking this Court to the provision at Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Act contended that the attempt of the State authority in placing the petitioner under suspension is an indicator of political vendetta. On the premises of non-disclosure of any reason and for not providing the petitioner an opportunity before passing such order, Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel claimed that the impugned order since arbitrary and invalid for remaining contrary to the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Act should be interfered with and set aside. Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel further contended that once the petitioner becomes an elected representative, prevention of the petitioner from discharging his responsibility of Sarpanch will be amounting to affect the right involved with the petitioner involving a Grama Panchayat election, being an elected representative.

(3.) Miss. Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel in her opposition to the submission of Sri Acharya, taking this Court to the provision at Section 115 (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and the suspension order at Annexure-1, contended that for the power of the competent authority under subSection (2) of Section 115 of the Grama Panchayat Act, further the suspension order having only been passed on 30.10.2018 on contemplation of initiation of a proceeding involving the petitioner, it is not the time to interfere in such order. Miss. Mishra, further also contended that looking to the time gap between moving of the petitioner to this Court at this stage is also otherwise premature.