Disposed¶26

Jagu Kumar @ Jagu Kumbhar v. Collector and District Magistrte, Kalahandi

Orissa HC10 Mar 2026WP(C)/5318/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ward member disqualification; three children; Section 26(2) Orissa Grama Panchayat Act 1964; Utkela Gram Panchayat; Kesinga Block / Kesinga Panchayat Samiti; Kalahandi; Collector and District Magistrate; District Panchayat Officer; Election Officer cum B.D.O; G.P. (Election Petition) Case No.10 of 2024; Sri Narendra Majhi ex-Sarpanch; non-filing of counter reply; remand and re-decision; writ disposed without interference; pending I.As. disposed; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; order dated 12.12.2025; 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the impugned disqualification order, and pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. ¶26

Jagu Kumar @ Jagu Kumbhar Vs Collector and District Magistrte, Kalahandi — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the impugned disqualification order, and pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi in G.P. (Election Petition) Case No.10 of 2024, disqualifying the Petitioner as ward member of Utkela Gram Panchayat, contains any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary powers. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

On considering the impugned order and the materials on record, the Court found no infirmity in the disqualification order dated 12.12.2025 so as to warrant interference in exercise of its plenary powers; the impugned order was left undisturbed.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the Court's earlier direction, the Petitioner submitted no counter or relevant documents to substantiate his plea that he does not incur the disqualification under Section 26(2) for having three children; the Opposite Party No.1's recorded finding that no counter reply was furnished (though all sought documents were supplied) stood uncontroverted on record, so the disqualification was not rebutted.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second-round writ petition (W.P.(C) No.5318 of 2026, disposed 10.03.2026, V. Narasingh, J.) by Sri Jagu Kumar @ Jagu Kumbhar, challenging his re-disqualification as ward member of Utkela Gram Panchayat (Kesinga Block, Kalahandi) under Section 26(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 for having three children. His earlier writ (W.P.(C) No.15191 of 2025) had resulted in quashing of the first disqualification order dated 14.02.2025 and the consequential notification dated 02.04.2025, with G.P. (Election Petition) Case No.10 of 2024 remitted to the Collector & District Magistrate, Kalahandi for fresh decision in accordance with law and liberty to submit a reply. The Petitioner nonetheless filed no counter or documents; nothing on record controverted OP-1's finding that no counter reply was furnished though all sought documents were supplied. Finding no infirmity warranting interference in exercise of plenary powers, the Judge disposed of the writ petition leaving the fresh disqualification order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure-1) intact; pending I.As. stand disposed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5318 of 2026

¶2

Sri Jagu Kumar @ Jagu &. Kumbhar

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. Collector and District &. Opposite Parties Magistrate, Kalahandi 2. District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi

¶7

3. Election Officer Cum B.D.O Kesinga Block, Kalahandi

¶8

4. Sri Narendra Majhi Ex Sarpanch of Utkela Gram Panchayat

¶9

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

10.03.2026

¶12

Order No.

¶13

02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

Assailing the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No.1-Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi in G.P. (Election Petition) case No.10 of 2024 under Annexure-1 thereby disqualifying the Petitioner to continue as a ward member of Utkela Gram Panchayat under Kesinga Panchayat Samiti in the District of Kalahandi, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the Petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.15191 of 2025 and by order dated 03.06.2025 while setting aside the order of disqualification impugned therein dated 14.02.2025 annexed as Annexure-1 and the consequential notification issued under Annexure-2. The matter was remitted back to Opposite Party No.1 therein to take up the G.P. (Election Petition) case No.10 of 2024 and decide the matter in accordance with law. For convenience of reference paragraph-7.3 of the said order is extracted hereunder:-

¶17

<7.3.- In view of the aforesaid illegalities or irregularities which are apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.14.02.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1 and consequential Notification dtd.02.04.2025 issued under Annexure-2. While quashing the order under Annexure-1 and the Notification under Annexure-2, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take up G.P. (Election) Petition Case No.10/2024 and decide the same in accordance with law. Since Petitioner admittedly has not filed the reply, this Court permits the Petitioner to file her reply within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of supply of the report dtd. 11.02.2025 and the complaint basing on which the proceeding in question was initiated. On his filing of the reply, Opposite Party No.1 shall take all possible step

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law on or before 15.07.2025, if there is no other legal impediment. Petitioner is directed to appear before Opposite Party No.1 on or before 30.06.2025 along with a copy of this order. On his appearance, copy of the complaint and the report as directed be supplied to the Petitioner forthwith.=

¶20

Admittedly, the impugned order in this writ petition was passed in terms of the order of this Court referred to hereinabove.

¶21

Notwithstanding the direction of this Court, the Petitioner did not submit any counter or any relevant documents to substantiate his plea that he does not incur the disqualification under Section 26(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Acts, 1964 on account of having three children. The relevant extract of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-

¶22

<The Learned Advocate for the O.P. did not furnish his Counter Reply though all the relevant documents he sought for was supplied.=

¶23

There is nothing on record to controvert such finding by the Opposite Party No.1.

¶24

On considering the impugned order and on the basis of materials on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary powers.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26