The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 in determining the disqualification of a candidate based on the number of children after a specified cut-off date.

Judgment

S.C. Parija, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 26.02.2013, passed by the Learned District Judge, Jajpur, in G.P. Election Appeal No. 01 of 2013, dismissing the same & confirming the Judgment dated 04.01.2013, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur, in Election Case No. 03 of 2012, holding the Petitioner disqualified for the post of Sarpanch of Mangarajpur Grama Panchayat & declaring the Opp. Party as the Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. The brief facts of the case as detailed in the Writ Petition is that the Petitioner & the Opp. Party contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Mangarajpur Grama Panchayat, which was held on 13.02.2012. In the said election, after counting of votes, the Petitioner was declared elected. The Opp. Party challenged the election of present Petitioner in Election Case No. 03 of 2012, before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur, mainly on the ground that the Petitioner has three children after the cut-off date, i.e. 18.04.1994, namely, Smitaranj Barik, Jyotismita & Bhakti C23 Prasad, who were born on 10.04.2000, 20.05.2002 & 07.07.2009 respectively & therefore he is disqualified for being elected as Sarpanch, as per the provisions of Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (the 'Act' in short). Accordingly, Opp. Party prayed for declaring the Petitioner disqualified for the post of Sarpanch of Mangarajpur Grama Panchayat & to declare the Opp. Party as the elected Sarpanch.

2. The Petitioner contested the case by filing objection & pleaded that the marriage between him & Manorama was solemnized on 08.03.2000 & out of their wedlock one daughter, namely, Jyotismita was born on 20.02.2002 & subsequently he was blessed with a son, namely, Bhakti Prasad on 07.07.2009. It was specifically pleaded by the Petitioner that he has no third child as has been alleged & that Smitarani Barik is the youngest daughter of Jaydev Barik, who is his brother & that he had only got Smitarani Barik admitted in the school in the absence of his brother & had signed the admission register of the school as the guardian. It was pleaded by the Petitioner that as he married Manorama on 08.03.2000, it was not possible for her to give birth to Smitarani on 10.04.2000. Accordingly, the Petitioner prayed for dismissal of the election petition.

3. On the pleadings of the parties Learned Trial Court framed as many as five issues for consideration, out of which Issue Nos. III & IV were the vital issues, which are as follows:

(III) Whether the Opp. Party has more than two children after the cut-off date i.e. 18.04.1994 & his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Election Officer.

(IV) Whether the Petitioner can be declared as the Sarpanch of Mangarajpur G.P. in place of O.P.

4. During trial of the case the present Opp. Party examined four witnesses & relied upon the documents marked as Exts. 1 to 7 series. The present Petitioner examined fourteen witnesses & relied upon the documents marked as Exts. A to L series.

5. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, both oral & documentary, came to find that the Petitioner has more than two children after the cut-off date & therefore he is disqualified for the post of Sarpanch of Mangarajpur Grama Panchayat, as provided under Section 25(1)(v) of the OGP Act. As there were only two candidates in the election fray, Learned Trial Court proceeded to declare the present Opp. Party as the Sarpanch of Mangarajpur Grama Panchayat, in place of the present Petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the present Petitioner moved the Learned District Judge, Jajpur, in G.P. Election Appeal No. 01 of 2913. The Learned Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record & considering the findings of the Learned Trial Court, as recorded in the impugned Judgment & the reasons assigned in support of the same, has come to hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in