The discretionary and equitable nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and its wide power to issue writs, as well as the provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, Section 35 and Section 37, and Order XVI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to the production of documents.

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

This writ appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.21530 of 2012. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and thereby confirmed the order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh, (in short, “the Election Tribunal”), in E.P No.2 of 2012 allowing the application filed by respondent no.1 under Order XVI Rule 6 & 7 of the Civil Procedure Code calling for the documents.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the appellant are that she is the elected Sarpanch of Padiabahal Grama Panchayat under Khaprakhol Block. Challenging her election, respondent no.1 laid an election dispute before the learned Election Tribunal which is registered as E.P No.2 of 2012. In the list of documents, he relied on three documents said to have been obtained under the RTI Act. He had not taken any steps to produce those documents. However, those documents were produced by the appellant. The documents relate to the birth of first and third child of the appellant. While the matter stood thus, respondent no.1 filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 & 7 of the Civil Procedure Code for production of birth register from the custody of the S.D.M.O., Patnagarh and admission register from the custody of the Principal, Navodaya Bidyalaya, Belpada on the ground that the first document/register relates to birth of first child of the appellant in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Patnagarh and the second document relates to admission of third child of the appellant. By order dated 6.11.2012, learned Election Tribunal allowed the said application. Challenging the order dated 6.11.2012 of the learned Election Tribunal, the appellant filed WP(C) No.21530 of 2012. After hearing the matter at length, in an elaborate order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the Election Tribunal to take steps for expeditious disposal of the election petition.

3. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent no.2.

4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant, argued with vehemence that the order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the learned Election Tribunal is laconic one. Though the learned Single Judge came to a finding that the said order is a laconic one, but decided the writ petition on merit instead of remitting the matter back to the learned Election Tribunal. He further submitted that respondent no.1 relied on three documents said to have been obtained under the RTI Act, but he did not take any steps to produce the same. Those documents were ultimately produced by the appellant. As would be evident from the said documents, respondent no.1 had resorted to falsehood so far as obtaining of document under the RTI Act is concerned. When the conduct of respondent no.1 smacks of mala fide, no further indulgence could have been given to him to seek production of those documents. He also challenged the admissibility of those documents.

5. Be it noted that by order dated 12.8.2014, learned Single Judge passed the order of stay of further proceeding in E.P No.2 of 2012 pending before the learned Election Tribunal. However, before receipt of the said order, the birth register from S.D.M.O., Navodaya Bidyalaya, Belpada and the admission register from the Principal, Navodaya Bidyalaya, Belpada had already been received by the learned Election Tribunal though the same had not been marked as exhibits.

6. In Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100, the apex Court held that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. It was held that if justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law, the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting t