SANSARI SAMAL Vs. PUSPALATA PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the returned candidate to the office of Sarpanch of Nagiapasi Grama Panchayat. The election of the Petitioner has been challenged by the Opp. Party No. 1 on the ground that the Petitioner was not eligible to contest the said election as she is not able to read and write Oriya. The said election dispute was numbered as Election Petition No. 37 of 2007 and was ultimately allowed on 12.3.2008 by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal. The Election Tribunal while declaring the election of the Petitioner to be null and void, further directed that the election Petitioner (Opp. Party No. 1) having obtained the next highest number of votes, is declared as elected to the post of Sarpanch. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, preferred FAO No. 6 of 2008 before the Learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, who, while confirming the order of the Election Tribunal with regard to declaration of the election of the Petitioner as null and void, reversed the order of the Election Tribunal with regard to declaration of the Opp. Party No. 1 (election Petitioner) as the elected Sarpanch. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below declaring the election of the Petitioner as null and void, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for appropriate relief.

(2.) THE Opp. Party being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal reversing the order of the Election Tribunal, by which she was declared as the elected Sarpanch, has preferred W.P. (C) No. 13075 of 2008 for appropriate relief.

(3.) MR . P.K. Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urges that since this Court directed in the previous Writ Petition that the Petitioner should appear before the Election Tribunal on the date to which the case stands posted for trial and the said date, i.e., 3.3.2008 being not a date to which the Election Petition was posted for trial, even if the Petitioner did not appear on that date, the Learned Election Tribunal could not have recorded closure of evidence from the side of the Petitioner and could not have posted the case for argument. He further submits that by recording closure of evidence from the side of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been prevented from adducing the evidence and there has been violation of principles of natural justice. According to Mr. Singh, this question raised before the Appellate Court has also not been dealt with in its proper perspective.