Parbati Rout vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 15 December, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                W.P.(C) No.27996 of 2024

Parbati Rout                      ....             Petitioner
                         Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Senior Advocate
                      Assisted by Mr. Sudeep Ku. Sarangi &
                                Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocates

                           -Versus-


 State of Odisha & others           ....     Opposite Parties
                                         Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
                                           (O.P. Nos.1 to 4)
                               Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                                 (O.P. No.5)

        CORAM:
        JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

          DATE OF HEARING:03.09.2025
         DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15.12.2025


1.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-3 in Misc. Case (OGP Act) No.16 of 2022 of the learned Collector & District Magistrate, Nuapada, namely, opposite party No.2 and further to direct the said authority not to disengage her from the post of Ward Member of Ward No.4 of Dharambandha Gram Panchayat situate under Nuapada Block in the district of Kalahandi on the grounds stated therein.

2. Opposite party No.5 filed an application under Section 26 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act') registered as Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 alleging disqualification of the petitioner under Section 25(1)(v) thereof, which was allowed by opposite party No.2. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2023 when opposite party No.2 did not provide her an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during such proceeding and it was disposed of by order dated 12th March, 2024 with a direction for rehearing the matter. But, after such remand, without compliance of the same, the impugned order as per Annexure-3 was passed. According to the petitioner, she was selected as Ward Member of Ward No.4 of the Panchayat in the year 2022 and in that election, opposite party No.5 contested with her. After such election, such an application under Section 26 of the Act was filed by the said opposite party on the ground that the petitioner invites disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act for having three children born after the cut-off date on 28th April, 2010, 13th June, 2014 and 3rd child on 19th August, 2016 respectively. Considering such application of opposite party No.5 and after receiving evidence on the allegation, opposite party No.2 finally held that the petitioner is declared as disqualified being elected as Ward Member of Ward No.4 of the G.P. under Nuapada Panchayat Samiti and her election to the said post to be void vide Annexure-3 directed in connection with Misc. Case (OGP Act) No.16 of 2022. The final order was passed by opposite party No.2 after the remand of the matter by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2023 by order dated 12 th March, 2024 at Annexure-2. In fact, the petitioner was

earlier declared disqualified by order dated 29th March 2023 vide Annexure-1, but upon remand and on a rehearing, opposite party No.2 reiterated such disqualification of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 17th October, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3. The said declaration of disqualification under section 25(1)(v) of the Act is under challenge by the petitioner.

3. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, namely, District Panchayat Officer, Nuapada, opposite party No.3 and the same is gone through.

4. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.5 besides Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

5. According to opposite party No.2, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3, which is based on the reports received from the competent authorities with other evidence in support of such reports and sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, who also filed her show-cause reply and participated in the proceeding. It is pleaded that the petitioner did not specifically deny the allegation of opposite party No.5 and it was an evasive reply by her before opposite party No.2, inasmuch as, the B.D.O and C.D.P.O, Nuapada submitted their reports along with relevant extracts of the records of Anganwadi Centre revealing that she is having three children and all of them born after the cut-off date. It is

alleged that the petitioner appeared through her Advocate but attempted to linger the proceeding requesting repeated adjournments, hence, therefore, it is false to allege that she has not been provided opportunity of hearing in the proceeding under Section 26 of the Act. Opposite party No.2 further pleads that the show-cause reply was filed by the petitioner on 8th August, 2024 and by order dated 17th September, 2024, both the parties were directed to remain present on 3rd October, 2024, the date on which, hearing was held and the concerned officers were directed to produce the relevant documents and it was for the petitioner to file written note of defence on or before 17th October, 2024 and ultimately, the proceeding was concluded with the final order at Annexure-3 within the time stipulated by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2023. It is further pleaded that the petitioner did not submit any request to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore, it is again a falsehood to allege that no opportunity was granted to her for the said purpose even after the remand of the matter. In fact, according to opposite party No.2, reports were called from the B.D.O. and C.D.P.O, Nuapada and also the Medical Officer, CHC, Khariar Road, Nuapada and considering the same with other materials on record, it was established that the petitioner has got three children, hence, she invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. It is denied by opposite party No.2 that there has been unusual haste in disposal of the case when proper enquiry and opportunity was held and provided and ultimately, the proceeding was disposed of.

6. According to Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, opposite party No.2 primarily on the basis of information received through RTI Act held the petitioner as disqualified for having more than two children born after the cut-off date. It is also submitted that after remand by order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21571 of 2023 at Annexure-2, in course of hearing, opposite party No.2 directed the concerned officials to reproduce the relevant documents by 3rd October, 2024, whereafter, merely considering the same and without providing the petitioner, an opportunity to cross-examine the said officials, mechanically allowed the application under Section 26 of the Act and declared her disqualified under Section 25(1)(v) thereof.

7. Replying to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.5 submits that the petitioner's election has been rightly declared as invalid on account of her disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act duly proved upon receiving the reports and enquiry conducted by opposite party No.2. It is contended that the petitioner did not deny the allegation of opposite party No.5 about having more than two children born after the cut-off date i.e. 21st April, 1995. The contention is that even though the show-cause was filed by the petitioner on 8th August, 2024, it was an evasive reply and therefore, opposite party No.2 did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 upon a clear satisfaction reached at that all the three children of the petitioner were born in the year 2010 and afterwards.

8. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that supports the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.5 with the submission that not only opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, but also, she had participated in the proceeding and upon hearing on remand, opposite party No.2 declared her disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act, hence, the allegation that the entire exercise was concluded in a rush is false and a concocted story.

9. A second round of hearing has taken place before opposite party No.2 pursuant to Court's order in W.P.(C) No. 21571 of 2023 and it was on the premise that the petitioner requested for time on the ground of her Advocate's indisposition but the same was not entertained by opposite party No.2 and the proceeding was disposed of with a final order. The RTI information has been marked as Ext.1 without objection. It is made to reveal from Ext.1 that such information was provided by the PIO, CHC, Khariar Road regarding the date of birth. In fact, information was furnished by the Anganwadi Centre, which is also marked as Ext.2 and again without objection. It is further made to reveal from the record that the Medical Officer, CHC, Khariar Road and Anganwadi worker, Dharambandha appeared before opposite party No.2 and even produced the relevant Register. In fact, the Survey Register on being produced by the Anganwadi worker, it was examined by opposite party No.2 along with the records submitted to him by the Medical Officer, CHC, Khariar Road. Apart from the

above, the B.D.O., Nuapada submitted an enquiry report dated 27th January, 2023 and the same revealed that the petitioner is having three children, a daughter and a son born on 13th June, 2014 and the second son on 19th August, 2016. The said enquiry report is marked as Ext.3. All the above documents were marked as exhibits earlier and considered by opposite party No.2 leading to the passing of the final order as per Annexure-1.

10. But, as earlier mentioned, a rehearing was directed by this Court as per Annexure-2 and hence, the final order i.e. Annexure-3 arrived declaring the petitioner as disqualified with the satisfaction reached at that she has three children and all of them born after the cut-off date i.e. 21st April, 1994. The record does not reveal anywhere that the petitioner demanded cross-examination of any one of the officials on specific ground advanced. No doubt, there has been denial from the side of the petitioner to the claim of opposite party No.5. However, it has been a denial simplicitor, whereas, on the other hand, opposite party No.2 received evidence from the Anganwadi Centre and considering the relevant records including the Survey Register besides the reports concluded that the petitioner invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. The Court is of the considered view that there has been reasonable opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner and ultimately, the proceeding was disposed of. The reports called for by opposite party No.2 have been gone through and all of them were accepted. The reports revealed that the

claim of opposite party No.5 is true and all the children of the petitioner were born after the cut-off date. A proceeding under Section 26 of the Act is summary in nature and a demand for cross-examination of any of the official witnesses to confront the reports or relevant records can be entertained on a satisfaction arrived at the authority concerned. It does not mean that all the officials who submitted enquiry reports are to be cross-examined in a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act. Only if the concerned authority considers it expedient that any such official is required to be cross-examined for being confronted for a specific purpose for the reason demonstrated by the Sarpanch or a Member of the G.P. against whom the action has been initiated under Section 26 of the Act, only under such circumstances, a direction may be issued allowing cross-examination.

11. In the case at hand, the petitioner even though had knowledge about the reports failed to demonstrate that the officials, who submitted the same or one or any of them for that matter should be called for cross-examination. A case has to be made out while demanding cross-examination of officials, who submitted the reports. The Medical Officer of the CHC, C.D.P.O., Nuapada, and also the B.D.O., Nuapada furnished the reports which have become part of the case record and it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner as to the result of each enquiry held separately. But, no demand was received from the petitioner on any such ground made out for cross-examination of the officials

in order to confront any part of the reports prepared by them. It is to be reiterated that mere denial or any such evasive reply would not be sufficient. The petitioner failed to put forth any such defence in juxtaposition to the reports received by opposite party No.2. In absence of any such reply and response from the petitioner, opposite party No.2 considering the reports received and other evidence, which revealed the family status of the petitioner proceeded to hold that she invites disqualification, which in the considered view of the Court, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The evidence on record has been appreciated by opposite party No.2 with a just conclusion reached at that the petitioner is having more than two children born after the cut-off date and therefore, stands disqualified under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. The Court finds that no justifiable or compelling reason to differ with the view of opposite party No.2, hence, it is concluded that the impugned order at Annexure-3 is in accordance with law.

12. Hence, it is ordered.

13. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order passed in I.A. No.15058 of 2024 dated 14th November, 2024 is hereby vacated, as a result.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Alok Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 17-Dec-2025 15:08:06