IMPORTANT POINT
Where a member of Zilla Parishad was present in the third meeting of the parishad but he was not administeered oath of allegiance as the meeting stood adjourned after passing
resolution of condolence on account of death of a state leader, to such a case section 36 of Orissa Zilla Parishad Act did not apply and the member for failure to take oath of allegiance in any of first three meetings.

Order

Leave granted.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants, who had been elected as the members of the Zilla Parishad, cease to hold office for the reason that they had not taken the oath of allegiance as contemplated by section 36 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act (for short ‘the Act’).

3. The brief facts are that election to the said zilla Parishad took place and the results were declared on 29-1-1997. According to Section 36 of the Act the elected members, including the President and the Vice-President of the parishad are required to take oath of allegiance within three months of the date with effect from which they hold office or at any one of the first three meetings of the Parishad,m whichever is latter. If the oath is not taken then such person ceases to hold office.

4. In the present case first meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1997. According to the counter-affidavit of shri S.K. Satpathi, Col­lector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam, filed in this Court 69 members were elected to the said Zilla parishad. On 15-2-1997, 36 members who came at 10.30 AM were administered oath. The said Collector waited for other members till 11.20 AM and after that time no oath was adminis­tered. At the said meeting the President of the parishad was elected. The second meeting oath was administered to 26members out of the 33 members who had come at 10.30 AM. The appellants on that date also came after 10.30 AM and, therefore, oath was not administered to them because by that time the District Magistrate had left the place of meeting. The third meeting was called on 1-5-1997. The appellants were present at the time when the meeting was called. It transpires that a condolence resolution was passed on account of the demise of Shri Biju Patnaik and no oath was administered to the appellants. Notice was then sent for a meeting on 30-7-1997 where a dispute arose as to whether oath could be administered to the appellants. It was contended by some of the members that as the appellants had not taken oath in thefirst three meetings, therefore, by virtue of Section 36 they had ceased to be the members of the Zilla Parishad. The District Collector wrote a letter 14 August, 1997 to the Secretary, State Election Com­mission in which, he inter alia, stated that the third meeting gotr adjourned after the condolence resolution of late Shri Biju Patnaik. A clarification was sought from the Election Commission as to whether the appellants herein ceased to be the members of the Zilla Parishad. The Election Commission opined in favour of the appellants. It is thereafter that a writ petition was filed in the HIgh Court of Orissa by respondent No. 1, inter alia, contending that by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 the appellants had ceased to hold office as they had not complied with the said provisions.

5. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that three meetings of the Parishad had been held and the appellants herein had not taken oath in any of the said meetings and, therefore, they had ceased to hold office.

6. There is no dispute that in the first two meetings oath was not administered to the appellants. With regard to the meeting which was held on 1-5-1997, the letter dated 14th August, 1997, written by the Collector states that the said meeting “got adjourned after conde­lance resolution of late Shri Biju Patnaik”. In the affidavit of the said Collector, filed in this Court it is stated that on 1-5-1997 no member was given oath of allegance and the same was cancelled after the condolence was held for the demise of Shri Biju patnaik.

7. It is clear from the aforesaid that the third meeting stood ad­journed after the passing of the condolence resolution and, therefore, technically speaking, the meeting which ws called for 30-7-1997 would be the adjourned meeting. We do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court and the submission of the learned counsel for the re