Orissa High Court
Mamata Rout And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 25 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.9853 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India).
Mamata Rout and others ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Srichandan,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC
(OPNos.1 and 8)
Mr. R.N. Parija, Advocate
(OPNos.13, 14 & 15)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :12.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:25.02.2025
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The petitioners by means of this writ petition
have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by praying
to direct OPNo.8 to effectuate transfer of charge of
Champua BLF in favour of the petitioners in accordance
with Resolution dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-2 and
take necessary action against OPNos.13 to 15 for
impeding the transfer of charge.
2. The facts in nutshell are that on
19.01.2023, OPNo.8 issued a letter to all the Presidents
and Secretaries of Gram Panchayat Level Federations
(in short, the "GPLFs") in Champua Block for holding a
meeting for restructuring of Block Level Federation (in
short, the "BLF") to be held on 21.01.2023. The
petitioners accordingly claiming to have been elected as
President, Secretary and Treasurer of Champua BLF in
the election held on 21.01.2023 have laid claim to have
become the office bearers of Champua BLF, but the
earlier office bearers being OPNos.13 to 15 oppose such
election of the petitioners and made certain allegation
which was inquired into, but found to be false.
According to the petitioners, the election was conducted
by a panel consisting of BDO, BPC-cum-BPM, Mission
Shakti; Lady Supervisor representing CDPO, Champua
and PA-cum-BLC, Champua, in terms of the Mission
Shakti Guidelines and all the GPLFs of 22 Gram
Panchayat remained present in the election to the
Champua BLF, but the former President and Secretary
of Champua BLF were notably absent. Despite
disputing the election have not handed over the charge
to the newly elected office bearers and alleging against
OPNos.13 to 15 for financial irregularities and
misappropriation of funds, the petitioners got the
signatories of new BLF Bank Account changed and also
addressed letter to OPNo.8 to conduct BLF monthly
meeting which was allowed and finally on 04.01.2024,
the petitioners received Passbook of Champua BLF
Bank Accounts, however, the Presidents and
Secretaries of all GPLFs of Champua Block approached
the District Collector, Keonjhar (OPNo.2) to transfer the
charge from earlier office bearers to new office bearers,
but in vain. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. S.
Srichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that although the petitioners have been
validly elected to the Champua BLF, but OPNo.13 to 15
in collusion with OPNo.8 are not allowing the petitioners
to perform their duties. It is further submitted that
even though the Operation Manual for Federation
provides for restructuring of BLF and election to
Executive Committee (EC) members of BLF in every
two years and Champua Block having been notified as a
NAC since last five years, the restructuring of BLF was
not done by the authority and taking note of all this
things, OPNo.8 conducted election in which the
petitioners got elected as President and Secretary of
BLF, but OPNos.13 to 15 on one or some other pretext
are not handing over charge of the BLF and, thereby,
necessary direction be issued to the OPNo.8 to
effectuate transfer of charge of Champua BLF to the
petitioners. Mr.Srichandan, accordingly has prayed to
allow the writ petition by directing OP No.8 to
effectuate transfer of charge of the Champur BLF in
favour the petitioners.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned
ASC appearing for OPNos.1 and 8, however, has
submitted the election which was conducted by the
then BDO was not in accordance with the Rules and,
thereby, the dispute arose between old elected body
and new elected body of Champua BLF and such
election of the petitioners being in violation of
Government instruction and the BDO being not
authorized under Operation Manual to direct the old
office bearers of Champra BLF to hand over the charge,
the petitioners' claim being unmerited, no relief can be
granted to them. Mr.Pradhan according has prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
3.2. In reiterating the plea of OPNos.1 and 8,
Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, learned counsel appearing
for OPNos.13 to 15 has submitted that the election of
the petitioners was never valid since it was not
conducted by the panel authorized by Operation Manual
and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners to the office
of Champua BLF is illegal and unsustainable in the eye
of law. Accordingly, Mr. Parija has prayed to dismiss
the writ petition.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that
OPNos.1 and 8 in their counter affidavit has clearly
stated that Clause No.3.4 of the Operation Manual for
SHG Federation prescribes a election panel, which
consists of Deputy Collector, DSWO, Block
Development Officer (BDO) and Child Development
Project Officer (CDPO), but in the present case the
election to the BLF was conducted by the then BDO,
Champua in absence of Deputy Collector, DSWO, BDO,
CDPO and the resolution recorded therein was
forwarded to Chief Development Officer, Zilla Parishad
for taking further action. Notably, Clause-3.4 of the
Operation Manual of SHG Federation reads as under:-
"3.4. Election Panel
An Election panel will be constituted by
(i) Deputy Collector,
(ii) DSWO,
(iii) Block Development Officer,
(iv) Child Development Project Officer,
underwhose observation, the election of EC
members will be held in each block and DLF.
Subsequent to the election, the EC members,
election result sheet, resolution and process
report, will be signed and co-signed by the
election panel and submitted to the federation
office within 24 hours of the election held."
5. In the present case, the election to the
Champua BLF was conducted by only the then BDO in
presence of BPC-cum-BPM, Mission Shakti; Lady
Supervisor on behalf of CDPO, Champua and PA-cum-
BLC, Champua and representative of all GPLFs. It is to
be reminded here that if a thing has to be done in a
particular way, then the same thing has to be done in
that way or not at all, but doing such thing by deviating
the prescribed procedure will not be acceptable. In this
regard, this Court considers it useful to refer to the
decision in Nazir Ahmed vrs. King Emperor; AIR
1936 PC 253 wherein the Privy Council had noted that
when a statute, while conferring power, prescribes the
mode of exercise of that power, the power has to be
exercised in that manner, or not at all.
6. Be that as it may, it is, however, claimed
by the petitioners and not denied by the OPs that
rotation of BLF and other executive members should be
done once in a two years in terms of Clause-3.3(r) of
the Operation Manual for Federation, but the same has
not been adhered to in this case. It is also not in
dispute that Champua has already become Notified
Area Council (NAC) and, thereby, it is no longer a Gram
Panchayat and, therefore, restructure is accordingly
required. Further, OPNo.8 in its counter affidavit has
admitted the election conducted by the then BDO not in
consonance with the Rules, but he has not taken any
step to declare such election to be inoperative or
invalid. The petitioners, however, could not place
before the Court or brought to the notice of the Court
that the BDO is the authority as per guidelines to
effectuate transfer of the charge of the BLF to its new
incumbents at the time of assuming such office, rather
it has been brought to the notice of the Court that in
terms of Clause-5.3.1 of the SHG Operation Manual,
the BDO is the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee
without having any voting right.
7. Looking at the stand of OPNo.8-BDO, this
Court feels that the election of the petitioners to the
Office of the BLF either declared to be invalid or
inoperative or the same is to be ratified, but taking no
decision in this regard and terming such election to be
not in consonance with the Rules by the official
representative of the State puts the situation in
quandary, which in any event, would not help anybody
rather would impede the development and progress of
the society concerned to which such BLF is associated.
In the aforesaid situation and circumstance, especially
when the election of the petitioners having not been
done in accordance with the provisions of Operation
Manual and no provision having brought to the notice of
the Court by the petitioners to show that their election
has been ratified by the authority concerned, this Court
does not consider it proper to issue any direction to
OPNo.8 to hand over the charge of BLF to the
petitioners.
8. In the result, the writ petition being devoid
of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the
circumstance there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25TH day of February, 2025/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:43:56
