Basanti Sahoo Vs Ramadebi Routray

2 . W.P.(C) No.5196 of 2025: Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner (hence called as ‘the returned candidate’) challenging the impugned judgment in Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024 of the learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Puri confirming the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili, Puri in Election Misc. Case No.01 of 2022 for having declared her as disqualified holding the position of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti and consequently, as the Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram Panchayat with opposite party No.1 (hence referred as ‘the election petitioner’) to have been duly elected instead as per Section 44-J(2) read with Section 44-E of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and additionally directing election to be held to fill up the post of the Member, Panchayat Samiti of the G.P. due to creation of a casual vacancy, as a result of such disqualification on the grounds inter alia that such decision is clearly erroneous and against the weight of evidence and hence, legally not tenable and therefore, liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

¶17

3 . W.P.(C) No.5565 of 2025: Whereas, the present writ petition is at the behest of the election petitioner challenging the judgment in Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024 of the learned court below to the extent setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili, Puri in Election Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022 declaring her as the elected Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti on the ground that the impugned decision is not sustainable in law, hence,

¶18

Page 2 of 21

¶19

deserves to be set aside thereby restoring such declaration expedient in the interest of justice.

¶20

4 . The returned candidate was elected as the Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti, whereafter, the election petitioner filed Election Misc. Case No.01 of 2022 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili, Puri seeking a declaration that the former is disqualified under Section 45 (v) of the Act read with 2^nd proviso thereto and accordingly, election as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and resultantly, as Member of the G.P. as illegal and void and consequentially to declare her to be duly elected to the post of Chairman being the sole contesting candidate. The learned Civil Judge disposed of the election petition and declared the returned candidate’s election to be void and the election petitioner to be the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. Being aggrieved of the above decision, the returned candidate filed Election Appeal No.10/03 of 2024 and it was finally disposed of by the learned court below upholding the decision on disqualification to the extent declaring such election as void but reversed the finding and the consequential declaration in favour of the election petitioner to be the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and directing the authority concerned to fill up the said post for having a casual vacancy created. As a result, both the parties, filed the writ petitions with respective reliefs.

¶21

5 . The returned candidate belongs to Gada-Motari G.P. whereas, opposite party No.1 is from Kothabada G.P. situate under Delang Block in the district of Puri. The State

¶22

Page 3 of 21

¶23

Government issued a notice on 11^th January, 2022 for the election and accordingly, the election process was commenced and the returned candidate contested the election for the post of Member, Harirajpur G.P. along with other candidates and got elected. Opposite party No.1 had filed her nomination for the seat of Member, Delang Kothabada Panchayat and she was also elected and thereafter, the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti chose the returned candidate as the Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti by a majority of votes. After the election was over, opposite party No.1 filed the election petition and it was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge declaring such election to be invalid followed by consequential directions issued therein. The challenge to the election of the returned candidate is on the ground that she has more than two children born after the cut-off date and therefore, invited disqualification under Section 45(1)(v) of the Act and accordingly, sought for a declaration and election of opposite party No.1 as the Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti.

¶24

6 . As revealed from the record, the returned candidate had initially filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 26^th October, 2022 questioning the maintainability of the proceeding referring to Section 45-B of the Act and it was allowed by order dated 22^nd February, 2023 thereby disposing of Election Misc. Case No.01 of 2022 not being maintainable, as against which, the election petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Puri,

¶25

Page 4 of 21

¶26

which was disposed of setting aside the decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pipili with the observation that such an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not applicable in respect of election disputes relating to the Panchayats. In other words, the learned District Judge allowed Election Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2023 and quashed the order in Election Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022 with a conclusion that the election petition is maintainable. After that, the proceeding was taken up for hearing of the election petition and during that time, the election petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28055 of 2022 before this Court, wherein, a direction was issued to dispose it of within the period stipulated.

¶27

7 . In the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge, the election petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and two others and admitted nearly ten documents in support of the plea that the returned candidate stands disqualified for having a third child born to her after the cut-off date. No evidence was received from the side of the returned candidate. Considering the materials on record, the learned Civil Judge declared the election of the returned candidate as illegal and void and the election petitioner as duly elected the Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti in view of Section 44-J(2) read with Section 44-E of the Act further declaring casual vacancy created for the post of Panchayat Samiti Member to be filled up in accordance with law in order to ensure proper functioning of the Panchayat Samiti. As earlier stated, the appeal filed by the returned candidate

¶28

Page 5 of 21

¶29

was partly allowed, however, setting aside the declaration in favour of the election petitioner allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 3^rd February, 2025.

¶30

8 . Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the returned candidate and Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the election petitioner besides Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶31

9 . Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the returned candidate submits that an objection was filed on the maintainability of the election petition at the instance of the election petitioner in view of section 45-B of the Act with the additional plea that the allegations made therein to be false, imaginary and vexatious and far from the truth and also alleging absence of a cause of action to maintain the same and being barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the returned candidate moved the learned Civil Judge with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the maintainability of the election petition and the same was allowed on 2^nd February, 2023 and challenged in appeal and was reversed with a direction to dispose of the same on merit. It is stated that on 10^th November, 2023, an additional issue on maintainability referring to Section 45-B of the Act was framed and thereafter, the hearing was fixed to different dates. According to Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate, on 20^th February, 2024, the election petitioner was examined, cross-examined and was discharged and thereafter, on 23^rd April, 2024, her husband filed affidavit evidence as P.W.2 and at that time, she moved an

¶32

Page 6 of 21

¶33

application to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was held and concluded on 17^th July, 2024 and furthermore, on 30^th July, 2024, on the request of the election petitioner, a document was called for from the custody of P.W.3, namely, Headmaster and in the meanwhile, crossexamination of P.W.2 was completed. It is further stated that cross-examination of P.W.3 on behalf of the returned candidate was deferred to 6^th August, 2024 on her request and on the said date, adjournment was rejected and such examination was closed. It is further submitted that on 30^th August, 2024, the counsel of the returned candidate suddenly feel sick and filed an application for adjournment and by the time, P.W.3 was present in the court at around 5.30 P.M., he had already left but the learned Civil Judge rejected the request for an adjournment and closed the evidence of the election petitioner and thereafter, the case was posted to 2^nd September, 2024, the date on which, an application seeking recall of P.W.3. was moved but the same was not entertained and was fixed to 3^rd September, 2024 for argument. The submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate is that after the case was directed to be listed for argument on 5^th September, 2024, the learned Additional Government Pleader filed an application for recall of the order dated 2^nd September, 2024 and allowed the Election Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Delang to adduce evidence and interestingly, it was allowed when in spite of repeated requests from the side of the returned candidate, she was not allowed to cross-examine P.Ws.2 and 3 and as a result, disallowing her to lead evidence in rebuttal and

¶34

Page 7 of 21

¶35

therefore, such a treatment amounts to discrimination, inasmuch as, when on 17^th September, 2024, the Election Officer was examined and cross-examined and ultimately, the judgment was pronounced on 19^th September, 2024. It is contended by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate that the learned Civil Judge should not have refused the request for adjournment and as a result, it can be said that the returned candidate was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the election proceeding and while claiming so, a decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vrs. Chandra Govindji ( 2000) 8 SCC 532 has been placed reliance on. It is further contended that the returned candidate was not allowed to adduce additional evidence, when such an application was moved and was kept pending to be considered at the time of final hearing and disposal of the appeal by an order dated 16^th January, 2025 but ultimately, even such a request was dishonoured and therefore, she was deprived of an opportunity of equal treatment to lead evidence. The submission is that the returned candidate should have been allowed to adduce evidence in order to defend the charge levelled against her and therefore, when there has been a request for additional evidence, it would be proper, if this Court allow the same with a direction for consideration of such evidence and disposal of the appeal within a stipulated period, which is absolutely necessary in the ends of justice. The contention is that the learned court below could have remanded the matter in terms of Order 41 Rules 27 and 28 for receiving such additional evidence and the same is permissible under law

¶36

Page 8 of 21

¶37

and advancing such an argument, a case law in Smt. Sabitri Bagh Vs. Smt. Bhaji Bagh 2011 (Supplementary) 1 OLR 936 is referred to with the claim that it would not be wrong to allege that proper and reasonable opportunity was deprived of by both the learned courts below, which has caused serious prejudice to the returned candidate. It is claimed that had there been an opportunity to adduce evidence and even additional evidence before the learned court below, the returned candidate would have proved the fact that her husband, namely, Bidyadhar Sahoo was earlier married to her sister, namely, Basants Manjari and out of their wedlock, twin children were born duly recorded in the original Birth Register and as referred to in the information collected under the RTI Act from Delang CHC and the further fact that the said Basanta Manjari died, whereafter, she married with the other son born from that marriage, hence, the real truth has not been revealed and therefore, the allegations made in the election petition are outrightly false.

¶38

10 . Referring to a decision of the Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Nayak Vrs. Collector, Mayurbhanj, Orissa and others (1999) 2 SCC 627 , it has been further contended by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate that the action at the behest of the election petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 45(1) of the Act which deals with eligibility and qualification to become a Member and for the elected members including Chairman, Vice-Chairman eligibility is determined by virtue of sub-section(2) thereof. The submission is that the election petitioner as a member

¶39

Page 9 of 21

¶40

elected from another constituency cannot maintain the action challenging the election of other members from different constituencies as specified Section 44-C of the Act, as in other words, a candidate, who contested election with the returned candidate can only file the election petition. In that connection, the above decision has been cited and referred to by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate with the submission that the election petition can be maintained by a candidate in fray with the elected member under Section 44-A of the Act. It is also contended that there is distinction between the words, such as, ‘candidate’ and ‘member’ and while stating so, Rules 2(c) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti (Conduct of Inquiry by the District Judge into the Allegations, Doubts about Disqualification of Members) Rules, 1973 is referred. The further contention is that the decisions cited from the other side are distinguishable. It is finally contended that apart from failing to consider the question on maintainability of the election petition, the learned courts below neither allowed the returned candidate to lead evidence much less additional evidence nor properly analyzed the scope of Section 45-B with reference Section 44-A of the Act and hence, the impugned judgments at Annexures-4 and 5 deserve to be quashed being not legally tenable.

¶41

11 . On the contrary, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the election petitioner would submit that the returned candidate has been rightly declared as disqualified for having a 3^rd child born to her after the statutory cut-off

¶42

Page 10 of 21

¶43

date in terms of Section 45(1)(v) of the Act. The further submission is that the learned courts below did not err in declaring the disqualification even though the judgment of the court of first instance was modified directing the creation of a casual vacancy for the post of Chairman, Delanga Panchayat Samiti. In so far as the maintainability of the action under Section 44-A of the Act is concerned, objection to the same by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned courts below a further claimed. It is submitted that notwithstanding Section 45-B of the Act, a proceeding under Section 44-A of the Act challenging the election is maintainable. The contention of Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate is that an action under Section 45B of the Act is entertained by the learned District Judge by a member of a Samiti, whereas, a proceeding under Section 44-A with an election petition filed may be presented by any candidate. It is further contended that objection of the petitioner with reference to Section 45-B of the Act to the election petition is totally misconceived in view of the decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar Azad Vrs. State of Odisha & others 1993(I) OLR 563 , wherein, it has been concluded that the election of the Chairman of the Samiti can be challenged under Section 44-A of the Act.

¶44

12 . Referring to the order sheets of the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge, it has been contended by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate that ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner all along and ultimately the proceeding was disposed of declaring the election of the

¶45

Page 11 of 21

¶46

petitioner as invalid under Section 45(1)(v) of the Act. It is contended that the election for the post of Chairman was held in the year 2022 and therein, the petitioner and opposite party No.1 were the contestants. It is claimed that the election petitioner had raised objection against the candidature of the returned candidate on the ground of having a 3^rd child born to her after the cutoff date and that she invites disqualification under Section 45(1)(v) of the Act and after the election, the petition was filed under Section 44-A of the Act. The contention is that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved for rejection of the election petition before the learned Civil Judge with the plea that such petition under Section 44-A of the Act cannot be entertained since the challenge is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the learned District Judge under Section 45-B thereof and the same was allowed but reversed in Election Appeal No.1 of 2023 disposed of on 3^rd August, 2023, wherein, the learned District Judge, Puri held that such action is maintainable. Thereafter, according to Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate, the election petition filed W.P.(C) No.28055 of 2022, wherein, a time line was fixed for disposal of the proceeding and thereafter, the hearing therein was commenced with witnesses examined on different dates. It is alleged that one of the witnesses, namely, P.W.1 was examined but cross-examination could not be held on a single date and finally on 17^th July, 2024, it was accomplished. Similarly, it is claimed that P.W.2 was not cross-examined by the returned candidate, as a result, the evidence was closed. Lastly, it is alleged that P.W.3 was

¶47

Page 12 of 21

¶48

examined and further examination was fixed to 30^th August, 2024, however, on the said date, the counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine him and likewise, learned Civil Judge rejecting the application for time discharged him and fixed the case to 2^nd September, 2024 for evidence from the other side. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the learned Civil Judge allowed adjournments liberally but it was not availed of by the returned candidate and ultimately, argument from both sides was concluded.

¶49

13 . With regard to the plea of not allowing additional evidence in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC., it is contended that a party is not entitled to produce the same unless it shows that such evidence could not be submitted before the Trial Court despite exercise of due diligence. The contention is that even though the learned court below by order dated 16^th January, 2025 observed that the application for additional evidence would be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal but was left out of consideration since the returned candidate did not have any convincing explanation as to the circumstances in which any such evidence was sought to be adduced, which could not be produced earlier.

¶50

14 . In the first place, the question of maintainability of the proceeding under Section 44-A of the Act is to be considered by the Court. In Suresh Kumar Azad (supra), the question was whether the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Samiti as the case may be is

¶51

Page 13 of 21

¶52

maintainable under the Act and discussing the relevant provisions, such as, Sections 44-A and 45-B (5) of the Act, it has been concluded therein that the Chairman’s election could also be challenged under Section 44-A of the Act. It has also been concluded therein that despite the introduction of the amendment of the Act, 1991 and in view of Clause(n) Section 16(1) thereof, a Chairman is to be recognized as a member and therefore, what was stated in Section 44-B(5) of the Act has remained unaltered to hold that such challenge to the election would also be subject of adjudication in a proceeding under Section 44-A, hence, it would be open to any person aggrieved with the election of the Chairman to challenge the same. In the considered view of the Court irrespective of Section 45-B of the Act, any such challenge to the election of the Chairman of the Samiti is maintainable under Section 44-A of the Act in view of the decision in Suresh Kumar Azad (supra). In fact, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate for the returned candidate refers to the decision of Rabindra Kumar Nayak (supra) to contend that the action of Section 44-A cannot be sustained in law with the submission that the Apex Court therein made a distinction on the applicability of the provisions of Sections 44-A and 45-B of the Act with a detailed analysis and held that an election petition under Section 44-A can be filed by any candidate, who need not be a member but an application under Section 45-B may be filed only by a member of the Samiti, who is in doubt about having incurred disqualification. It is also contended that in the above decision, while discussing the relevant provisions,

¶53

Page 14 of 21

¶54

it was observed that there is some overlapping between the two but the field of operation of such provisions is distinct and different. According to Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate, the election petition can only be filed by the candidate contesting the election, whereas, an elected member can maintain an application under Section 45-B and references was made to Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1973 that defines ‘member’ as a member of the Samiti having a right to vote. The challenge to the election petition is on the ground that the proceeding initiated should have been at the behest of a candidate contesting the election and therefore, the election to the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti cannot be raised except by filing an application under Section 45-B of the Act. But, the Court, considering the decision in Suresh Kumar Azad (supra) is of the humble view that election to the post of Chairman may be questioned with an application under Section 44-A of the Act, even though, a distinction is sought to be made by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate. Referring to the decision in Rabindra Kumar Nayak (supra), the Court is of the ultimate view that the objection against the maintainability of the election petition under Section 44-A of the Act is liable to be rejected. In fact, this Court in Bishnu Prasad Das Vrs. Election Officer-cum-Block Development Officer & others 2003 SCC OnLine Ori 278 referred to the case of Gobind Ch. Panda Vrs. Darsan Ch. Rout and others 35 (1969) CLT 1108 and also Suresh Kumar Azad (supra) to hold that a Member of a Samiti in Section 44-A of the Act would include the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and

¶55

Page 15 of 21

¶56

therefore, the election of a Chairman can be challenged under the provisions of the Act. On a further reading of Section 44-A read with Section 44-C, it has been held therein that an election petition may be presented challenging the election of a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti by any candidate for the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and in such an election petition, the Chairman, whose election is questioned, is to be arrayed as an opposite party and ultimately concluded that the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti can be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the Act and even by taking into account Section 44-C, the position of law laid down in Suresh Kumar Azad (supra) would not be altered. Similarly, in Akshaya Mohanty Vrs. Ashok Das & another (2010) 109 CLT 513 , a question arose with a preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability of the election petition with regard to the election of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti filed under Section 44-A of the Act but it was concluded that such an objection is not maintainable and therein, the case of Suresh Kumar Azad (supra) was also referred to.

¶57

15 . In fact, in Rabindra Kumar Nayak (Supra), the Apex Court held that remedy under Section 44-A is not a bar to the maintainability of an application under Section 45-B of the Act. In fact, the above decision is cited by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate and equally by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate and considering the case laws discussed hereinbefore, the Court is to reiterate the

¶58

Page 16 of 21

¶59

conclusion that challenge to the election of the Chairman of a Samiti is maintainable under Section 44-A irrespective of any such action leviable under Section 45-B of the Act.

¶60

16 . As regards the plea of additional evidence though such an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved but it was finally not considered by the learned court below. In fact, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate refers to a decision in Smt. Sabitri Bagh Vrs. Smt. Bhaji Bagh (2011) 112 CLT 295 to contend that Order 41 and the provisions therein are not to be applicable in a case under the Act, as held therein. The Court considering the plea of the returned candidate for additional evidence, having regard to the fact that the witnesses put under examination were not crossexamined and discharged and it was a lapse on the part of the returned candidate, the learned court below did not commit any wrong or illegality in not considering additional evidence at the stage of appeal. It can be said that the proceeding when was adjourned to number of dates but still the witnesses, namely P.Ws.2 & 3 were not cross-examined and finally, the learned Civil Judge had to discharge them, under such circumstances, discretion was left with the learned court below to consider allowing additional evidence or even a remand. From the order sheets of the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge, it is clearly evident that ample opportunity was provided to the returned candidate but she failed to cross-examine P.Ws.2 & 3 and not only that, could not succeed in leading defence evidence and as a result, no option was left except for it to conclude

¶61

Page 17 of 21

¶62

the proceeding finally. The said aspect was duly taken judicial notice of by the learned court below and in view of the conduct of the returned candidate considered it not to entertain additional evidence and finally disposed of the appeal. The Court considering the fact that the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge supports the claim of series of adjournments but it was not availed of leading to the default on the part of the returned candidate failing to crossexamine P.Ws.2 & 3 and even leading evidence in defence, the learned court below having not considered any such plea to reopen the hearing, there has been no illegality committed, inasmuch as, such closure in evidence and the decision of the learned Civil Judge upheld in appeal is perfectly justified and suffers from no perversity.

¶63

17 . Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the election petitioner would further submit that there has been no specific denial on the material facts pleaded in the election petition as required under Order 8 Rules 3 and 5. The further submission is that the returned candidate did not file any W.S. and instead submitted an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and such failure to deny the pleaded facts amounts to admission by her. In that connection, the decision of the Apex Court in Jaspal Kaur Cheema and another Vrs. Industrial Trade Links and others (2017) 8 SCC 592 and Thangam and another Vrs. Navamani Ammal (2024) 4 SCC 247 have been referred to. In fact, in Jaspal Kaur Cheema (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that a defendant in W.S. must categorically deny or

¶64

Page 18 of 21

¶65

dispute the averments made in the plaint and evasive denial would amount to admission and referred to Section 116 of the Evidence Act to observe that the principle of estoppel is enumerated therein and in the context of the dispute between a tenant and a landlord, it was concluded that in absence of any such specific plea raised challenging the eviction in the hands of the landlord on any such ground denying or disputing the ownership in terms of Order 8 Rules 3 & 5 CPC or the failure to make specific denial in that regard amounts to an admission. Similarly, in Thangam (supra), the Apex Court with reference to Order 8 CPC and the relevant provisions related thereto held that specific admission and denial of pleadings in plaint is necessary meaning thereby allegations therein must be dealt with parawise and in absence of any reply in such manner any such general evasive denial would not be enough and therefore, specific admission and denial of the pleadings to be absolutely necessary.

¶66

18 . In the case at hand, the pleading is to the effect that the returned candidate is having a child born after the cut-off date, hence, invited disqualification under Section 45(1)(v) of the Act. No W.S. was filed by the returned candidate, only an objection at the initial stage in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but participated in the hearing and even proceeded to cross-examine P.W.1 but failed to do so in respect of P.Ws.2 and 3. In absence of any such pleading from the side of the returned candidate, no question of any such admission or denial does arise. It may be said that there

¶67

Page 19 of 21

¶68

was no defence as such to controvert the plea of the election petitioner. It has been emphatically pleaded that the returned candidate invites disqualification for having a 3^rd child born after the cut-off of date and as a consequence, as the Panchayat Samiti Member of Delanga and also Chairman of the Samiti which was to be met with a defence. But, there has been no W.S. filed ever nor the returned candidate could lead defence evidence. According to Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate for the returned candidate, there was no opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal as the hearing was concluded leaving no scope for the same. Such contention is unacceptable since it is made to appear that the witnesses were examined from the side of the election petitioner but a valuable right and the opportunity to crossexamine P.Ws.2 and 3 was lost by the returned candidate and also defaulted in not leading defence evidence, an act which cannot be condoned.

¶69

19 . Having regard to the discussion hereinabove, the Court reaches at inescapable conclusion that despite the proceeding being adjourned, the returned candidate miserably failed to adduce evidence and that apart, there has been no pleading on record denying any such allegation attributing disqualification against her. Absence of denial or evasive reply to the claim of the election petitioner amounts to admission. In fact, the returned candidate in a cavalier fashion conducted herself and as a consequence, the learned courts below for the default in leading defence evidence and considering the plea of the election petitioner and the

¶70

Page 20 of 21

¶71

evidence received and the materials on record received, rightly, reached at the conclusion that the returned candidate invited disqualification under Section 45(1)(v) of the Act, which in the considered view of the Court, should not be tampered with and disturbed. Even the Court finds that there has been a detailed discussion of evidence received on disqualification and the conclusion arrived at in that regard by the learned courts below cannot be claimed as perverse requiring any kind of interference exercising writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court is equally not inclined to tinker with the conclusion of the learned court below with reference to Section 44-J(2) of the Act since any such consequential declaration is not automatic, rather, it depends on the circumstances considered more appropriate and rightly held the best option available is to go for election declaring a casual vacancy.

¶72

20 . Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶73

21 . In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶74

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶75

Balaram

¶76

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: AuthenticationLocation: OHC, CUTTACK Page 21 of 21 Date: 17-Dec-2025 19:08:46

¶77

Signature Not Verified

Basanti Sahoo v. Ramadebi Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanti Sahoo v. Ramadebi Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantilata Sahu Vs Sidheswar Baliram Bondar, I.A.S

Ranubala Parida Vs Debasis Rout,Oas

Dayanidhi Swain Vs Debasis Rout,Oas

Jagannath Jani Vs State of Odisha

Debasis Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Bijendra Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha