Ramadebi Routaray vs Basanti Sahoo And Another .... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16723 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramadebi Routaray vs Basanti Sahoo And Another .... Opposite ... on 14 November, 2024

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.27571 of 2024
        Ramadebi Routaray                          ....                Petitioner

                                                   Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate

                                       -Versus-

        Basanti Sahoo and another                  ....         Opposite Parties
                                                       Mr. R. Pradhan, ASC
                                      Mr. K.K. Rout, Advocate for O.P. No.1
                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                       ORDER

Order                                 14.11.2024
No.
01.     1.      Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27th September, 2024 passed in connection with Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024 by learned District Judge, Puri on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the court of 1st instance in Election Misc Case No.01 of 2022 has been stayed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 which is not legally tenable as learned District Judge, Puri does not have the jurisdiction in that regard and while advancing such an argument, he refers to Section 44-J of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and decision of this Court in Sabitri Bagh Vrs. Bhaji Bagh AIR 2011 Orissa 148. The contention is that the petitioner has been declared as the returned candidate in view of the judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili vide Annexure-1,

operation of which, has been stayed by Annexure-2 and the same is not inconsonance with the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as, learned District Judge, Puri has no jurisdiction to pass any such order.

4. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 is present and requests a week's time to file reply, which is objected to by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, opposite party No.1 filed Caveat No.1052 of 2024, which is in record.

5. Recording the objection Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to allow opposite party No.1 to respond to the contention advanced with reference to Section 44-J of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 for a final disposal. Consequently, opposite party No.1 is allowed seven days time to file a reply positively.

6. Opposite party No.1, in the event files a reply within the above stipulated period, shall serve a copy of the same on Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner immediately.

7. List on 21st November, 2024 for final orders.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU