TAPASWINI PANDA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 16.8.2018 passed by the Collector, Subarnapur, opposite party no.1, whereby and whereunder the opposite party no.1 has disqualified the petitioner to hold the office of the Sarpanch, Sindurpur Gram Panchayat in Binika Panchayat Samiti, Dist.-Subarnapur under Sec.25(1)(v) of the Odisha Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 ("Act") on the ground that she begot a third child on 1.11.1998, i.e., after the cut off date.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in Sindurpur Gram Panchayat. Maheswar Mahakur, opposite party no.3, filed an application before the opposite party no.1 stating that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Sec.25(1)(v) of the Act, since she begot a third child on 1.11.1998, i.e., after the cut off date 21.4.1995. It is stated that the petitioner has three children, namely, Jharana, Aruna and Jully. Jharana, Aruna and Jully were born on 20.6.1990, 18.6.1992 and 1.11.1998 respectively. Opposite party no.1 issued notice to the petitioner through the District Panchayat Officer, Subarnapur on 11.7.2018 vide Annexure-2 for appearance. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.1 issued notice to the C.D.P.O., Binika, Headmaster, SGA Nodal Uchha Prathamika Vidyalaya, Sindurpur and Medical Officer, CHC, Binika to appear before him on 27.7.2018 to adduce evidence. Pursuant to the notice, the C.D.P.O., Binika, Headmaster, SGA Nodal Uchha Prathamika Vidyalaya, Sindurpur, Medical Officer, CHC, Binika appeared before the opposite party no.1 on 27.7.2018. The petitioner and the Advocate of opposite party no.3 were present. The opposite party no.1 verified the admission register of SGA Nodal Uchha Prathamika Vidyalaya, Sindurpur in their presence on the same day. It was found that the date of birth of Jharana was 20.6.1990, Aruna was 18.6.1992 and Jully was 1.11.1998. The C.D.P.O., Binika submitted the report stating that the petitioner is living with three children. The Advocate of the petitioner sought time to file objection. On 4.8.2018, the petitioner filed a petition to drop the proceeding, vide Annexure-4, stating inter alia that opposite party no.3 is the husband of Smt. Geetanjali Mahakur. Geetanjali Mahakur filed election dispute under Sec.30 of the Act before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepur. The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the application. On taking a holistic view of the matter, the opposite party no.1 came to hold that the third child was born on 1.11.1998, i.e., after the cut off date. The petitioner incurred disqualification under Sec.25(1)(v) of the Act.

(3.) Heard Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prasad Mohapatra, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Uttam Kumar Sahu, learned A.S.C. for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Advocate along with Mr. Adhiraj Behera, learned Advocate for the opposite party no.3.