SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ori) 580

ORISSA HIGH COURT
C. R. DASH, J.
Susama Das – Appellant
Vs.
Kumari Kabita Behera and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 18405 of 2013
Decided On : 18/09/2014

Headnote:EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Sec.35 - To render a document admissible under the Section three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry, that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must have been made by public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law. (Para-14)

ORDER :

As both the writ applications involve common facts and questions of law, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

2. Susama Das is the petitioner in both the writ applications. She was elected as Panchayat Samiti Member (Samiti Sabhya) of Chikalakhandi Grama Panchayat in the election held on 17-2-2012 defeating Kumari Kabita Behera (opposite party No.1 in W.P. (C) No. 18405 of 2013) the only contesting candidate. On being so elected, she subsequently contested for the post of Chairman of Chhatrapur Panchayat Samiti. She was declared elected as Chairman of Chhatrapur Panchayat Samiti defeating Prativa Behera (opposite party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 18405 of 2013). Both Prativa Behera and Kumari Kabita Behera moved the Election Tribunal, i.e., Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhatra-pur vide Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 and Election Petition No.2 of 2012 respectively challenging the election of Susama Das as Chairman of Chhatrapur Panchayat Samiti and Panchayat Samiti Member of Chikalakhandi Grama Panchayat on the ground that she (Susama Das) had given birth to her third child named Chinmaya Das after the cut off date, i.e., 21-4-1995.

3. Learned Election Tribunal, after hearing, dismissed the aforesaid election petitions obliging Kumari Kabita Behera and Prativa Behera to move the learned District Judge, Ganjam in Election Appeal No. 6 of 2012 and Election Appeal No. 7 of 2012 respectively for the redressal of their grievances regarding alleged illegal election of the present petitioner-Susama Das. Learned District Judge, Ganjam, after hearing, allowed Election Appeal No. 6 of 2012 and declared Kumari Kabita Behera (opposite party No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 18405 of 2013) to have been elected, as she had polled second highest vote in the election for the post of Samiti Sabhya of Chikalakhandi Grama Panchayat and she was the only other candidate, who had contested. Election Appeal No. 7 of 2012 filed by Prativa Behera (opposite party No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 18406 of 2013) was, however, allowed in part and the prayer of said Prativa Behera to the effect that she be declared elected as Chairman of Chhatrapur Panchayat Samiti was negatived.

4. The findings in the Election Appeal No. 6 of 2013 in favour of Kumari Kabita Behera has been impugned by the present petitioner-Susma Das in W.P.(C) No. 18405 of 2013 and findings in Election Appeal No. 7 of 2013 filed by Prativa Behera has been impugned by said Susama Das in W.P.(C) No. 18406 of 2013. In both the writ applications, the issue involved is, whether the third child of Susama Das was born before the cut off date (21-4-1995) or after the cut off date.

5. It is the case of opposite party No. 1 in both the writ applications (as election petitioners) that the third child of the petitioner-Susama Das was born after the cut off date, i.e., 21-4-1995. It was averred by them in the election petitions that the first child of the petitioner-Susama Das was born on 19-4-1989, second child was born on 26-7-1990 and the third child was born on 31-5-1996. They relied on the information provided by the Headmaster of Upper Primary School, Rikapalli, Chhatrapur NAC, Ganjam and claimed that the petitioner is disqualified to contest the election as per Section-45 (1) (v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.

6. The petitioner, upon notice, filed her written statement stating therein that her third child was not born on 31-5-1996 and the correct date of his birth is 28-5-1994, which is before the cut off date, i.e., 21-4-1995. It was specifically averred that initially her (petitioners) third child was admitted in the Government U.P. School Kumarbegapalli on 5-7-1999 and the School Admission Register shows that the date of his birth is 28-5-1994. Subsequently, he was admitted in Rikapalli U.P. School and the school authority, having failed to record his correct date of birth, wrongly entered the date of birth as 31-5-1996, which remained uncorrected. The petitioner, from her side r





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top