Shek Abutehara vs Shantilata Mishra And Others .... ... on 6 January, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

AFR                       W.P.(C) No.21078 of 2025

        Shek Abutehara                      ....           Petitioner
                                  Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate

                                  -Versus-

        Shantilata Mishra and others         ....    Opposite Parties
                                           Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
                        Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. No.1

                CORAM:
                JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                  DATE OF HEARING:17.09.2025
                 DATE OF JUDGMENT:06.01.2026

      1.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2025 passed in connection with Election Appeal No.1 of 2025 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara vide Annexure-4 confirming the decision dated 7th March, 2025 at Annexure-3 declaring his election as null and void directed in Election Misc. Case No.4 of 2022 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside being not in consonance with law.

2. Briefly stated, opposite party No.1 challenging the election of the petitioner filed Election Misc. Case No.4 of 2022 alleging therein that he is a defaulter of loan and unable to read and write in Odia, hence, invites disqualification in view of Section 39 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act,

1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Civil Judge received evidence from both the sides and finally disposed of the election dispute vide Annexure-3 with the conclusion that the petitioner's nomination and candidature at election as the Sarpanch of Suhagpur G.P. held in 2022 is void with a direction to hold re-election to fill up the said post. Against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned court below but it stood confirmed by the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-4, which is under challenge at present.

3. A copy of the election petition is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through. The challenge to the election of the petitioner is on account of him being a defaulter having failed to pay the arrear dues in respect of a loan availed from Suhagpur Cooperative Society and unable to read and write in Odia. In so far as, the first ground vis-à-vis defaulter in repayment of the loan amount, it could not be established before the learned Civil Judge and such plea was abandoned before the Court of Appeal. Before this Court, the challenge to the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 is confined to the decision on disqualification on the premise that the petitioner is unable to read and write Odia. The Court is, therefore, to consider, whether, on any such ground, the decision vide Annexure-4 of the learned court below can be sustained in law.

4. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that no material facts have been pleaded by opposite party No.1 while alleging that the petitioner is unable to read and write in Odia. The further submission is that there has been evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner is having the capacity to read and write Odia but the same has been ignored by both the learned courts below. Referring to a decision in Kuntala Mallik Vrs. Smt. Bharati Behera of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7580 of 2024 dated 14th August, 2024, it is further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and as a result, concluded that the petitioner cannot read and write in Odia especially when there is no standard prescribed under the Act within the meaning of Section 11(b) thereof necessarily to conduct a test regarding one's ability to read and write Odia, an exercise which has been undertaken by the learned Civil Judge and therefore, the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 deserve to be set at naught.

6. Recorded the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 would submit that there is no any wrong or illegality committed by the learned courts below in arriving at the conclusion about the petitioner's incapacity to read and write Odia which is a disqualification under the Act. Though, evidence was received from the side of the petitioner, according to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, it was not proved in the manner contemplated under law and that apart, learned

Civil Judge could not have accepted the same to hold the ability of the petitioner to read and write Odia. The documents confronted to the petitioner during and in course of hearing of the proceeding clearly revealed the inability on the part of the petitioner to read and write Odia, hence, it is further submitted that the learned courts below did not commit any error in unanimously concluding that he stands disqualified as the Sarpanch of the GP in view of Section 11(b) of the Act, a decision, which should not be interfered with and disturbed.

7. The petitioner proved his writing in Odia in Ext.A and relied on a School Leaving Certificate issued to him by a primary school as Ext.D to claim that he is able to read and write in Odia. No any document has been received as evidence in support of such a plea from the side of opposite party No.1. In fact, the statements of the account and other exhibits vis-a-vis plea of opposite party No.1 alleging the petitioner to be a defaulter of arrear dues of such loan and evidence in that regard was received. But, in course of the proceeding, the petitioner examined as OPW.3 was confronted with a book by name 'Chabila Madhu Barnabodha' and Odia Daily 'The Samaj' dated 8th February, 2024. In cross-examination, such confrontation was made to the petitioner, who himself admitted his inability to write a sentence referred and reproduced in the body of the judgment at Annexure-4 and could not even read the above book and also the newspaper with a plea that he had an injury to his right eye nearly two months before such examination. In

support of the eye injury, the petitioner proved the medical prescription as Ext.C to Ext.C/3. However, as made to appear from Annexure-4 even though Ext. C revealed the petitioner to have received injury to his right eye but the same did not have any endorsement to the effect that he was unable to read due to such injury. No evidence was on record from the side of the petitioner either to show that any such injury was to the iris or pupil of the right eye. The learned courts below did find the petitioner the ability to read through his left eye. The medical condition pleaded by the petitioner while being examined as OPW.3 was though considered by the learned courts below but it was not sufficient to prove his ability to read the book and local newspaper through left eye, which had no such problem or medical condition.

8. In fact, Ext.A is a piece of paper which contained the alphabets in Odia purportedly written by the petitioner stated to have been prepared couple of days before his examination on 13th May, 2024. If the petitioner was able to write down the alphabets as made to appear from Ext.A, he could have repeated the same, writing down the sentence dictated in open court. In cross-examination, the petitioner as OPW.3 admitted the fact that he is not able to write the sentence such as 'Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Rozagar Yojana re ama Panchayat ku aei barsh kete tanka asichhi'. It does mean, the petitioner managed writing the alphabets few days before his examination if such claim is accepted but was unable to write a complete sentence and even admitted the same. Not only that, the petitioner was unable to read the book and

newspaper. Considering such evidence on record, the learned courts below arrived at a decision that the petitioner does not know how to read and write Odia. The Court having considered the entire evidence is equally of the view that the petitioner is unable to read and write in Odia when he was confronted with the book and the local newspaper and admitted his incapacity to write a sentence reproduced herein above. Under the above circumstances, even considering Ext.D, a School Leaving Certificate though not proved through the Headmaster of the concerned school who could not produce the original Register to confirm that the certificate was issued by the school in the year 1988-89, it has to be held and concluded that the petitioner invites disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act.

9. In Usha Sahoo Vrs. Ambika Sahoo and another 2011 (I) OLR 499, this Court has concluded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing a writ of certiorari, it is not to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless the decision of the courts below is based on surmises and conjectures so as to quash the same. It is further held therein that the standard of reading and writing Odia having not been specifically provided in the Act and Rules, the Court is precluded from introducing a minimum standard of a candidate to ascertain his ability in respect thereof and discouraged the test applied in Court with open dictation. In Mrs. Suryakanti Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2005 (Supp.) OLR 906, it has been held that no hard and fast rule can be prescribed for ascertaining as to

whether a candidate in the Panchayat election is having the ability to read and write in Odia. In Usha Sahoo (supra), it has also been held that any such conclusion should be drawn from the analysis of facts of each case. It has been found therein that the candidate, who was alleged of being unable to read and write in Odia, wrote down a correct sentence in Odia and that too, in good handwriting and with the observation that Odia language since contains various complicated words, mistakes are bound to occur especially with regard to Yuktakhyaras and dictating a sentence with such words to any candidate in Court would definitely make him skippy and unstable to correctly write down everything. Even though, such an exercise was not appreciated by this Court in Usha Sahoo (supra) but considered the evidence and took judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner was made to write down a sentence and he managed it correctly and the fact that mistakes are bound to take place when a sentence dictated is having words of Yuktakhyaras.

10. In Labangalata Mallick Vrs. Mandakini Mallick and others 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR 73, the same view has been expressed by this Court with the observation that a duly elected candidate should not be dislodged from holding the post of Sarpanch, whose election was challenged on such a ground being unable to read and write Odia. In the above noted case, the sentence dictated to the returned candidate was reproduced and after, it was written down, number of mistakes were noticed and hence, it was concluded by the court that he did not know how to read and write Odia and

hence, was not eligible to contest the election but this Court referring to the earlier decision in Kalabati Jena Vrs. Dhaneswar Jena and others 2009 (Supp.II) OLR 344 and Uma Ballav Rath Vrs. Maheswar Mohanty and others 88 (1999) CLT 329 (S.C) concluded that such disqualification for having mistakes in the writing by the returned candidate cannot be sustained and could not have been directed. A reference has been made to the decision in Mrs. Suryakanti Mishra (supra) therein and the same was distinguished on the ground that the elected Sarpanch in her cross-examination candidly admitted about her inability to read and write Odia contrary to the facts of the case. In Kalabati Jena (supra) referred to hereinabove and quoted in Labangalata Mallick case, this Court remitted the matter back with a direction that the Court of Appeal shall cause examination of the elected candidate by providing her an ordinary text book in Odia of M.E. standard to read the same before the Court itself and the portion of the book read out shall be marked as an exhibit with such other directions issued and thereafter to dispose of the appeal re-appreciating the materials available on record with findings vis-à-vis correctness of the portion of the book read out and written down during trial. Though, the case was remanded back, this Court in the above decision directed the Appellate Court to undertake such an exercise of dictation and writing down in open court providing a book of M.E. standard.

11. On the other hand, in Rokkam Ramprasad @ R. Ramparasad Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2010(I) OLR

787, it has been held by this Court that only reading is not sufficient but one has to know and be able to write Odia and considering the evidence received therein with the findings of the Appellate Court, the returned candidate since was able to read Odia but unable to write correctly, the decision in the appeal was interfered with. In the said case, the elected candidate could not write a word correctly out of a sentence dictated and considering the evidence in whole concluded that he does not know even some of the Odia alphabets, hence, concluded that the Appellate Court's decision that he was able to write in Odia besides reading is untenable. In Damburu Majhi Vrs. Tarini Charan Majhi 2006 (Supp.- II) OLR 266, a Division Bench of this Court held that if an election of a Sarpanch is challenged on the ground that he on the date of filing of nomination was unable to read and write Odia and there has been a decision by the learned Civil Judge declaring his election as invalid and upheld in appeal, jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded with the conclusion that he was not able to read and write Odia at the time of nomination paper filed, hence, declined to interfere with such disqualification under Section 11 (b) of the Act.

12. The Act does not prescribe any standard of reading and writing Odia. It has not been specifically provided anywhere in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even though, dictation in open court and writing down by the returned candidate has been discouraged in one of such decisions but

it has not been fully disapproved. There is no hard and fast rule to ascertain the manner by which a court can ascertain whether a person who contested GP election knows how to read and write Odia. If in course of cross-examination, a document is confronted to the elected candidate to find out his standard and whether he is able to read, an exercise, which has not been totally ruled out even by considering the case laws referred to hereinabove. In the humble view of the Court, any such evidence received cannot be discarded. The Act and the Rules may not have any prescription with regard to the standard necessary to prove and establish the elected candidate's disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act but according to the Court, an election petitioner cannot be restrained to confront a book on literature or lines from a local newspaper to the returned candidate, the purpose being to ascertain whether he is able to read Odia. Similarly, if either on the request of the election petitioner or the Court suo moto is inclined to dictate words of a sentence to ascertain whether the returned candidate is able to write, it should not be outrightly denied.

13. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that even with some mistakes, if one is able to read a sentence and such reading conveys a meaning for an ordinary person to understand when read out or in case of writing in Odia, the sentence is complete with few mistakes, it would be enough to conclude that such a person is able to read and write in Odia. A minimum standard is necessary for a member of the GP to discharge the functions assigned under the Act. A member or

a Sarpanch for that matter, who is unable to read and write in Odia cannot be expected to discharge any such duty satisfactorily. In fact, under the Act, a member of GP is assigned with so many functions and if one is not able to read and write Odia, it would be difficult to perform and therefore, such is a ground for disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act. If one is able to read but unable to write and has become a member of the GP and holding a responsible post, he is certainly to invite disqualification. One, as a member of the GP, is required to have the ability to read and also write Odia. Mere reading is not sufficient as Section 11(b) of the Act stipulates that the member must know how to write in Odia as well. If someone is having no academic qualification but he is able to read and write reasonably and it is revealed from the material evidence even with the dictation in open Court or complying the direction to read a book or a newspaper and the same is satisfactorily performed with the mistakes here and there, the same can be condoned, concluding that the person is able to read and write Odia. When someone having educational qualification but is unable to read or write Odia would also invite disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act. It is not about one's qualification to hold a post of the GP but the ability to read and write Odia because he or she is required to discharge variety of functions. A Sarpanch, who is the head of the GP and a responsible office bearer must have to know how to read and write Odia. While considering the evidence on record, one way of the other with or without undertaking any such exercise like open dictation or a direction to the returned

candidate to write a sentence, the same is to be appreciated having regard to the fact that some mistakes in reading and writing are bound to occur. But it has to be kept in mind that such reading and writing should convey a meaning at the end. The literacy of a person is not the criteria but disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act is to prevail whether a literate or an illiterate, who is unable to read and write Odia, the intent and purpose of the Act is to ensure that the duty and responsibility assigned under the Act are to be discharged satisfactorily by the men in charge of the GP either as a member or Sarpanch, whosoever.

14. This Court is of the view that the evidence received vide Exts.A and D could not have been accepted by the learned courts below and rightly denied since the former is a piece of paper with the writings of alphabets only by the returned candidate carrying no any endorsement as to when, where and in whose presence it was prepared and the latter is a School Leaving Certificate which is not relevant to consider the ability of one's reading and writing in Odia and could not even be proved by the Headmaster of the school examined as a witness, namely, CW.1. No other contemporaneous document has been produced by the petitioner with or without the process of the court to show and satisfy that he is able to write in Odia, which could have been managed him having been elected as the Sarpanch of the GP and a party to its decisions ever since 2022. In course of cross-examination, the petitioner rather honestly admitted that he is unable to write a sentence shown to him by the learned Civil Judge.

The learned courts below on a subjective satisfaction reached at concluded that the petitioner does not know how to read and write except putting his signatures on the resolutions of the GP. It is quite common that even illiterates put signatures even though they do not know how to write Odia, the fact, which has also been taken cognizance of by the learned court below. Someone, who is not able to read and write properly and openly admitted his inability to write a sentence on being confronted with during trial, the Court is of the conclusion that when such is the case of the petitioner, the learned courts below did not err to hold that he stands disqualified under Section 11(b) of the Act. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision at Annexure-4 confirming the judgment of the learned Civil Judge at Annexure-3 as it does not appear to be perverse or in any way unreasonable for having adopted open dictation and direction to the petitioner to write down a sentence and also to read a book and a newspaper. Having considered the evidence as a whole and submissions of the learned counsels for both the sides, the irresistible conclusion of the Court is that the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 suffer from no legal infirmity.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered.

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

Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO                                                    (R.K. Pattanaik)
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication                                                        Judge
Location: OHC, CTC                 Rojina
Date: 09-Jan-2026 16:02:20