Disposed¶25

Haribandhu Padhan v. Patuari Padhan

Orissa HC11 Sept 2025WA/2417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 2417 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, 11.09.2025, Pathak & Sahoo JJ. Maintainability of writ appeal against Single Judge order reversing election-petition success; Odisha Gram Panchayat Act 1964 Sections 30 & 31(1); Sarpanch election Sahala Gram Panchayat, Subarnapur; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423; Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1; appeal withdrawn with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the Writ Appeal permitted, with liberty to the appellant to pursue available judicial remedies before the appropriate forum. ¶25

Haribandhu Padhan Vs Patuari Padhan — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal of the Writ Appeal permitted, with liberty to the appellant to pursue available judicial remedies before the appropriate forum.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (2015) 9 SCC 1 (with subsequent reiterations), a Writ Appeal is maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Application challenging the order passed in the election appeal confirming the judgment in the election petition.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Appeal was disposed of as withdrawn at the instance of the appellant, upon instructions conveyed in Court by the learned instructing counsel, with the memo seeking withdrawal taken on record.

¶25

Key takeaways

The appellant was granted liberty to pursue his remedy as available under law, if so advised, before the appropriate Judicial Forum.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Election/Sarpanch dispute – Sahala Gram Panchayat, Subarnapur. Appellant Haribandhu Padhan's election petition under Sections 30 & 31(1), Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (MJC No.01 of 2022, Civil Judge (JD), Sonepur-Rampur) was allowed on 26.09.2023, declaring respondent No.1 Patuari Padhan's election void; Election Appeal No.14 of 2023 before the District Judge, Sonepur confirmed it (judgment dated 20.11.2023); the elected candidate's W.P.(C) No.39505 of 2023 was then allowed by a Single Judge, setting aside both judgments. In Writ Appeal WA No.2417 of 2024 (Division Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, JJ., order dated 11.09.2025), the Bench framed the preliminary question whether, in view of Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (2015) 9 SCC 1, a writ appeal is maintainable against such a Single Judge order. Before adjourned arguments, the appellant opted out and the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate judicial forum; the maintainability question stands undetermined by this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WA No. 2417 of 2024

¶3

Haribandhu Padhan

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Represented by Adv.– Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Behera, Advocate -Versus-

¶6

Patuari Padhan & Others

…. Respondents

Represented by Adv._

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND

¶11

Order No.

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 11.09.2025

¶13

(Hybrid mode)

¶14

03.

¶15

1. It is submitted that the appellant herein is the unsuccessful candidate having contested for the office of Sarpanch, Sahala Gram Panchayat in the district of Subarnapur challenged the election of the successful elected candidate, Patuari Padhan-respondent No.1 by filing election petition under Section 30 & 31(1) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 in election MJC No.01 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepur-Rampur. The said petition filed by the appellant was allowed by the learned Court by Judgment dated 26.09.2023, setting aside the election of the respondent No.1 directing thus:

¶16

“ The election petition be and the same is partly allowed on contest but under the circumstances, without costs. The election of O.P. No. 1 as the duly elected Sarpanch of Sahala Grama Panchayat in the 2022 Grama Panchayat Elections is hereby declared void and invalid

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

and a casual vacancy is hereby declared to have been created.

¶19

Pleaders’ fees at contested scale .”.

¶20

2. The respondent No.1 herein challenged the said judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), S. Rampur by filing the Election Appeal No.14 of 2023 as provided in the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 before the learned District Judge, Sonepur by Election Appeal No.14 of 2023. The learned Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court in the election petition. Thereafter, the judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated 20.11.2023, was challenged before this Court before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.39505 of 2023, by the elected candidate-respondent No.1. The writ petition has been allowed thereby setting aside both the judgment of the Court of the first instance as well as judgment of the learned Appellate Court.

¶21

3. In our considered view, we have to first consider, whether in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others (2015) 5 SCC 423 followed / reiterated in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat & Others: (2015) 9 SCC 1, subsequently reiterated in the subsequent decisions. Writ Appeal would be maintainable against the order passed by learned the Single Judge in a Writ Application challenging the order passed in the election appeal confirming the judgment in election petition.

¶22

4. The learned Senior Advocate would have had adjournment to address us on the above question of law. At this stage, the learned instructing counsel instructs the learned Senior

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Advocate that the appellant instead of pursuing Writ Appeal would be seeking appropriate judicial remedy as available under law.

¶25

5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶26

The memo of date filed by the learned instructing counsel Mr. Nath present in Court seeking withdrawal of the Writ Appeal is taken on record.

¶27

The appellant shall have the liberty to pursue his remedy as available under law, if so advised, before the appropriate Judicial Forum.

¶28

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge