Disposed

Ranjan Kumar Rout v. Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Orissa HC13 Sept 2023WP(C)/14871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination for President of Kamakhyanagar Bar Association due to a name discrepancy in the proposer's signature. The Court upheld the existence of a specific Election Tribunal mechanism and directed the Odisha State Bar Council to constitute the Tribunal to resolve the dispute instead of adjudicating it itself.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Odisha State Bar Council to constitute the Election Tribunal within fifteen days to hear and decide the dispute regarding the election.

Ranjan Kumar Rout Vs Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14871 of 2023

¶2

Ranjan Kumar Rout …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. L. Mishra, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Odisha State Bar Council, …. Opposite Parties Cuttack & Ors.

¶6

Mr. J.K. Padhi, Adv. for O.P.2 Mr. A.Pr. Bose, Adv. for O.P.3 Mr. A. Mishra, Adv. for O.P.4

¶7

Order No.

¶8

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.09.2023

¶9

¶10

1 . This matter is being addressed through a hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2 . In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has made the following prayer:-

¶12

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to Admit the Writ Petition, call for the relevant records and issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Parties No.1 and 2 to show cause as to why the Election process taken by the Opp.Party No.2 as an Election Officer of Kamakhyanagar Bar Association for the Post of President be declare null and void, if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute.

¶13

And further be pleased to direct the Opp.Party No.1 to conduct the election afresh of

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Kamakhyanagar Bar Association for the year 202324 pertaining to the post of President only and allow the Petitioner to participate in the election process for the Post of President in Kamakhyanagar Bar Association, Kamakhyanagar, Dist- Dhenkanal.

¶17

And may be pleased to quash / set aside the result of the election of Kamakhyanagar Bar Association pertaining to the post of President only, declaring the Opp.Party No.3 as the President of Kamakhyanagar Bar Association, by issuing a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari,

¶18

And may further be pleased to issue any other Writ (s)/Order (s) / Direction (s) as deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;”

¶19

3. Brief facts in brevity remains; as per the provisions under Section 76 of the Odisha State Bar Council (Affiliation & Election) Rules, 2021, (hereinafter in short be reflected as “the Rules, 2021”), a programme for election to the post of Office bearers and member of the Executive Body in respect of the Kamakhyanagar Bar Associations, Kamakhyanagar was conducted vide notification No.OSBC/9779/2023 for the term 2023-24. Pursuant to such notification dated 02.03.2023, the Kamakhyanagar Bar Association issued notifications regarding Election. Petitioner being an advocate of the Kamakhyanagar Bar Association, Dhenkanal having Enrolment No.O-538/1992, filed his nomination for the

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

post of President of Kamakhyanagar Bar Association and accordingly, deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards nomination fee. Petitioner also filed his nomination being proposed by one Mr. Sarbajit @ Sarbajeet Jee bearing Enrolment No.O-296/2010 at Sl.No.137 and the second proposer named Antaryami Rout bearing Enrolment No.O-191/2008 at serial No.11 in the Electoral Roll. It is alleged that upon filing of the nomination, the Election Officer of the Kamakhyanagar Bar Association/Opposite Party No.2 illegally rejected the nomination paper of the present Petitioner for the post of President of the Kamakhyanagar Bar Association and announced the names of the contesting candidates as well as the uncontested nominated candidates for the Election Year 2023-24 vide notification No.7 dated 11.03.2023. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶23

4. Challenging the inaction of the Election Officer/Opposite Party No.2, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the nomination paper of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the proposer has signed his name as “Sarbajit Jee”. It is, at this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that name of the said proposer as per the voter list prepared

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

by the Odisha State Bar Council “O.S.B.C“ is “Sarbajit Jee” and the same was also sent to the Election Officer/Opposite Party No.2 vide letter No.OSBC/9780 (153)/2023 dated 20.02.2023. However, the voter list prepared by the Kamakhyanagar Bar Association wrongly indicates the name of the proposer as “Sarbajeet Jee”.

¶27

5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for Petitioner that in order to rectify the confusion relating to indication of name, the Petitioner also mentioned the name of the proposer as “Sarbajit @ Sarbajeet Jee” in the nomination form. However, the Election Officer/Opposite Party No.2 did not consider the same and rejected the nomination paper of the Petitioner. Thereafter, being aggrieved with such inaction of the authority, the Petitioner on 13.03.2023 submitted his grievance before the Secretary, Odisha State Bar Council/Opposite Party No.1.

¶28

6. Upon receipt of such grievance petition of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 directed the Opposite Party No.2 to mention the correct name of the proposer as mentioned in the final voter list prepared and sent by the O.S.B.C.

¶29

Page 4 of 6

¶30

// 5 //

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner here alleges that despite several attempts of the Petitioner, the Election Officer/Opposite Party No.2 did not consider the nomination paper of the Petitioner properly and rejected the same. In the process, learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that due to such negligent attitude of the Election Officer/Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner is deprived of getting the opportunity of participating in the Election process involved herein.

¶32

8. Today in his challenge to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 submits that there is provision under Rule 53 of the Rules, 2021 for constitution of the Election Tribunal to resolve such type of disputes. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, accordingly, submitted that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition can very well be raised before the Election Tribunal.

¶33

9. The provision at Rule 53 of the Rules, 2021 is extracted hereunder:-

¶34

“53. Constitution of Election Tribunal: Council shall constitute Election Tribunal consisting of three members from amongst former Presidents of High Court Bar

¶35

Page 5 of 6

¶36

// 6 //

¶37

Association, Senior Advocates and Advocates having more than 30 years of practice before the date of Election.”

¶38

10. Considering the submissions made by the parties

¶39

and looking the factual scenario involved in this Writ Petition, this Court directs the State Bar Council, Odisha to constitute the Election Tribunal for resolving such dispute within a period of fifteen days hence, if the Election Tribunal has not been constituted as yet. It is also directed that the Election Tribunal shall start hearing the matter and pass order at the earliest possible preferably within a period of one month thereafter. If there is any delay, upon filing of a petition for condonation of delay, the Tribunal shall liberally condone the delay.

¶40

13. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above order.

¶41

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Ayaskanta

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Sep-2023 13:31:50

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Ranjan Kumar Rout v. Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar Rout v. Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golapi Podh Vs Adm,Bolangir

Lokanath Hans Vs State

The Bm,Odisha Gramya Bank,Mayurbhanj Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Mayurbhanj

Niranjan Patra Vs Bm, Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr

Premananda Satapathy Vs Sr. Bm. Union Bank of India

Asharani Pani Vs School and Mass Education