Ashok Muthamajhi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 W.P.(C) No.33974 of 2025

   Ashok Muthamajhi                   ....            Petitioner
                                     Mr. M. K. Chand, Advocate

                              -Versus-


   State of Odisha & others            ....      Opposite Parties
                                            Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC


            CORAM:
            JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
            DATE OF HEARING:17.12.2025
            DATE OF JUDGMENT:08.04.2026

1.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 7th November, 2025 as at Annexure-4 disqualifying him as the Sarpanch of Marlang Gram Panchayat as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, therefore to be quashed with a consequential direction to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to restore his position on the grounds inter alia that such exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not in accordance with law.

2. As per the facts pleaded on record, consequent upon notification for the Panchayat Election in 2022 in the State, the petitioner filed nomination for the post of Sarpanch of the concerned G.P. and for him having polled maximum votes was declared elected with the result published and ever since

assumed office, he continued discharging the duties and responsibilities attached to the post with sincerity and while matter stood thus, opposite party No.3 along with other unsuccessful candidates, who had contested the election with him, ganged up and hatched a plan and registered a complaint on 17th June, 2025 addressed to the BDO with a request to initiate a proceeding under Section 26(2) of the Act for his disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act for having more than two children born to him after the cut-off date. It is further pleaded that even though the said complaint was not directly addressed to opposite party No.2 for action under Section 26 of the Act but still it was admitted and without inviting show cause, notice was issued vide Annexure-2, which was not received by him and for that, it was followed by notice dated 13th October 2025 as per Annexure-3 with a direction to appear before opposite party No.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that till 24th October, 2025, he was only served with a copy of the complaint without any supportive documents, for which, on his appearance, a request was made to opposite party No.2 to supply the same but hearing on disqualification was concluded without even confronting the reports received from the CHC, Kotagarh and the CDPO, ICDS, Kotagarh and also the Birth Register of AWC and therefore, under such circumstances, the impugned decision vide Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in law.

3. On the contrary, the opposite parties refuted the claim of the petitioner, filed the counter affidavit and pleaded therein that such a complaint was received by opposite party No.2 with a

copy to the BDO, Kotagarh alleging disqualification of the petitioner for having more than two children and upon receiving the same, inquiry was directed and a joint inquiry report dated 25th July, 2025 was received and it revealed that he has in total four children. It is further pleaded that after receipt of the said report as at Annexure-B/2, opposite party No.2 issued notice to the petitioner for hearing to be held on 12th September, 2025, but it was him who denied to receive the same and did not appear on the date fixed. A copy of the said notice is at Annexure-C/2 and due to the absence of the petitioner, it is pleaded that the next date of hearing was fixed to 17th October, 2025 with an intimation to the petitioner through the Tahasildar, Kotagarh and its compliance was reported to opposite party No.2 by letter No.2522 dated 14 th October, 2025. But for abundant caution, notice was also sent through Registered Post with postal receipt at Annexure-D/2. According to the opposite parties, despite the above exercise to ensure service of notice on the petitioner, he deliberately avoided receiving it himself and remained absent on 12th September, 2025, hence, a fresh notice was issued for his appearance on 24th October, 2025, the date on which, he appeared through a counsel but instead of participating in the hearing, moved an application for time on health ground which was allowed and the next date of hearing was fixed to 31 st October, 2025, which was deferred to 7th November, 2025 and during that time, no any request was ever received by opposite party No.2 to supply copies of documents by a separate application moved. As per the opposite parties, on the date of first hearing on 7th November, 2025, the petitioner appeared

through his Advocate, who was provided all the reports and there was a hearing and also cross-examination of two official witnesses, namely, GPDO, Kotagarh, who produced the joint inquiry report and Lady Supervisor, ICDS, Kotagarh and the latter proved the Anganwadi Survey Register and in the proceeding, the counsel was allowed to orally examine the complainants, however, after such participation, another application for time was moved with medical reports, which was not accepted by opposite party No.2 and thereafter, in open court the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 was dictated and pronounced and therefore the allegation regarding non- supply of copies of the documents and not granting opportunity of hearing by the petitioner is totally false. It is also pleaded that such complaint was registered as Case No.1/GP-2025 and the petitioner was accordingly proceeded with for having invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act and while claiming the petitioner's participation in proceeding, a copy of the Attendance Sheet dated 7th November, 2025 as at Annexure-G/2 is referred to. At last, it is pleaded that even though there has been no such application received from the petitioner for supply of documents/inquiry report which was called for by opposite party No.2, ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine the official witnesses on the inquiry report confronted at the time of hearing and on a subjective satisfaction reached at to the effect that the complaint regarding him having more than two children after the cut-off date, it was followed by disqualification and hence, no illegality has been committed. It is pleaded that such disqualification of the petitioner was duly

notified vide Annexure-H/2. The stand of the opposite parties is that the petitioner having been provided reasonable time and opportunity to reply and respond to the complainant and also the report, opposite party No.2, in absence of anything to contrary, directed disqualification of the petitioner in view of Section 25(1)(v) of the Act and hence, therefore, in absence of any illegality committed, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed affirming the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4.

4. Heard Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

5. Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that opposite party No.2 was duty-bound to confront all the adverse materials to the petitioner before accepting the same and reaching at a conclusion on disqualification vide Annexure-4. It is contended that the documents have not been supplied nor have the official witnesses who prepared the report been cross-examined with any such exercise being undertaken by opposite party No.2, who, however, finally concluded, the petitioner having invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Chand, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an elected representative, hence, before any such disqualification directed against him, it was for opposite party No.2 to conduct the proceeding in such a manner that he received a proper audience but no such procedure was followed and it has ultimately led to the disqualification under Annexure-4. According to Mr. Chand, learned counsel, all the adverse materials referred to and relied

on during the proceedings should have been brought to the notice of the petitioner for a proper hearing and response and the same having not taken place, the entire exercise stood vitiated, hence, the impugned decision on disqualification vide Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with.

6. On the contrary, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that there has been no wrong or any such illegality committed by opposite party No.2 since a proper hearing was held and no response by way of a show cause was filed disputing the claim of having more than two children born to him after the cut-off date and in that case, to demand any such plea for non-observance of principles of natural justice cannot be entertained and in support of the above contention, a decision of this Court in Jitendra Muduli Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 153 has been placed reliance on.

7. To the counter affidavit of the opposite parties, no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner, which means, the claim of a hearing held in the manner described therein has not been disputed and for the above, the Court has to proceed on the premise that the adverse report of inquiry had been confronted to the petitioner at the time of hearing with no response received from him. The attendance of the petitioner and his appearance through an advocate is not in dispute and therefore, it has to be assumed that the fact-finding report having been received from the CDPO, Kotagarh and BPHO, Kotagarh through the BDO, Kotagarh was brought to the notice of the petitioner during and in course of hearing. Under the above circumstances, the

question is whether the order on disqualification vide Annexure-4 can be interfered with and set at naught?

8. A disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act is invited when a member of the G.P. has more than two children born after the cut-off date and as per sub-section (2) thereof, the Sarpanch or any other member of the G.P. shall be disqualified to continue and cease to be a member, if he invites disqualification on any of the grounds specified therein. On a reading of the above provisions, it is made to understand that a person with more than two children is not qualified for being elected as Sarpanch of the G.P. but someone having more than two children on 18th April, 1994, the date on which Odisha Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 was introduced, no such disqualification is invited and similarly, a 3rd child if born within one year from 18th April, 1994, the disqualification is not attached.

8.1. In so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he appears to have four children and all of them were born long after 18th April, 1994. As per the joint inquiry report submitted by the CDPO, Kotagarh and the BPHO, Kotagarh as at Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit, the eldest child was born to the petitioner on 12th September, 2005 and 2nd, 3rd (female) arrived on 7th August, 2006, 30th July, 2010 and 28th July, 2010 respectively, which means all have been born much after the cut-off date and the same was revealed from the Family Register and Aasha Survey Register maintained at the Salki Sitaguda AWC. The report reveals that the Anganwadi Worker, who submitted the Family Register, was examined

during the field visit and also the Aasha Worker in respect of the Survey Register and conclusion of the joint inquiry was to the effect that based on the field verification, examination of the Family Register and Aasha Survey Register, it is confirmed that the petitioner has four children and hence, the complaint against him is found to be true and substantiated. When such a joint report dated 21st July, 2025 was received and it was shared with the petitioner or at least him having the knowledge about the same on being confronted in course of hearing in presence of his counsel, a response to the same was expected. But neither a reply nor any such response was received from the petitioner on the allegations levelled and the report of inquiry. Therefore, it has to be held that either the allegations remained undisputed or admitted by the petitioner for no response received from him even after all the incriminating materials had been confronted. It is reiterated that in absence of any such reply to the show cause notice, the allegation for having more than two children born to the petitioner after the cut-off date shall have to be admitted as true.

8.2. In absence of a reply by way of rejoinder to the counter of the State, it has to be concluded that all such materials including the report received after a joint inquiry held at the ground level and the reason behind disqualification was well within the knowledge of the petitioner but still no response was received. The Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that there was no proper hearing held by opposite party No.2. No occasion lies either to consider the

correctness of the joint inquiry report at Annexure-B/2 referring to which opposite party No.2 reached at a conclusion that the petitioner is having four children, all of whom were born after the cut-off date, hence, there is disqualification invited under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. In Jitendra Muduli (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that a Court is not to insist on observance of principles of natural justice when the allegations are not disputed or are admitted and concluded that non-service of report of a Medical Officer therein would not amount to denial of opportunity of hearing.

9. A proceeding under Section 26 of the Act is summary in nature but at the same time, fairness is to observed allowing the Sarpanch or any such member of the G.P. a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any such decision on disqualification is arrived at. If any application is received or even an oral request for cross-examination of official witnesses responsible for the reports prepared and to be relied on is adverse to the interest of the Sarpanch, it shall have to be entertained since ultimately the truth is to be unearthed. An allegation of having more than two children born after the cut- off date is normally based on records. It is of course not possible for anyone to prove a fact in the negative. Any such claim alleging disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act is to depend on the evidence received during inquiry, hence, it is for the State to substantiate the same.

10. In the case at hand, the joint inquiry report dated 21st July, 2025 revealed the family status of the petitioner on the basis of a field visit and verification of the relevant Registers of the

AWC. In fact, the Family Register with the relevant extracts with all details recorded therein have been referred to and similarly with respect to the Aasha Survey Register and the same bared it all that the petitioner is having children born to him long after the cut-off date dated 18th April, 1994. The impugned order at Annexure-4 reveals that the petitioner filed no documents to refute the allegation and therefore the conclusion is about his disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. Considering the nature of inquiry normally conducted in a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act, the need is to ensure a proper opportunity of hearing and as such, in the case of the petitioner, all the adverse reports were brought to his notice at the time of hearing, a fact which has not been disputed by a rejoinder filed, hence, it has to be concluded that he invited disqualification under Section 25 (1)(v) of the Act. For the discussions as aforesaid and recording submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds no any reason to interfere with the decision of opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-4.

11. Accordingly, it is ordered.

12. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Balaram

Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT

Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 13:35:52