Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J.
Manorama Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
Kona Rajeswari Reddy and others - Opp. parties
W.P. (C) No.15815 of 2013
Decided on : 13-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Jagannath Patnaik, (Senior Advocate), B.Mohanty, T.K.Patnaik & S.Patnaik.
For the Opposite parties : M/s. Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Sandeep Parida & P.N.Patra. Mr.L.Samantaray (Addl. Standing Counsel)
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the phrase 'read and write Odia' in the context of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, and the duties of a Sarpanch as outlined in Section 19.
Headnote:
Odia Language Requirement - Election Appeal - Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, Section 11 - The court discussed the ability of the petitioner to write Odia as required under Sub-section (b) of Section 11 of the Act. The court referred to the nature of duties of a Sarpanch under Section 19 of the Act and emphasized the importance of the ability to write Odia in fulfilling these duties. The court also analyzed previous judgments and their interpretations of the phrase 'read and write Odia' in the context of the Act and the duties of a Sarpanch. The court concluded that the petitioner's writing did not convey any meaning in Odia and was done with difficulty, indicating a lack of ability to write Odia as required by the Act. The court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and opp. party No.1 contested election for the post of Sarpanch of Indrakhi Grama panchayat. Opp. party No.1 filed an Election Petition alleging that the petitioner was unable to read and write Odia as required under Section 11(b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. The trial court found the petitioner's reading and writing ability to be manageable and dismissed the Election Petition. However, the appellate court allowed the appeal and declared the election of the petitioner as null and void, leading to the present writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's writing did not convey any meaning in Odia and was done with difficulty, indicating a lack of ability to write Odia as required by the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of the ability to write Odia in fulfilling the duties of a Sarpanch as outlined in Section 19 of the Act. The court concluded that the impugned judgment was reasonable and found no error in it.
Issues: The main issue was the ability of the petitioner to write Odia as required under Section 11(b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the phrase 'read and write Odia' in the context of the Act and the duties of a Sarpanch as outlined in Section 19. The court emphasized the importance of the ability to write Odia in fulfilling these duties and concluded that the petitioner's writing did not meet the required standard.
Final Decision: The court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ application.
JUDGMENT :
Biswajit Mohanty, J.
The petitioner has filed the present writ application to set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.7.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur in Election Appeal No.01 of 2012 by issuing appropriate writ/writs in the nature of writ of certiorari. She has also prayed for cost.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
3. The petitioner and opp. party No.1 contested election for the post of Sarpanch of Indrakhi Grama panchayat which was held on 13.02.2012. In the said election, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Challenging the same, opp. party No.1 filed Election Petition No.01 of 2012 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur on very many grounds. One of the grounds was that the petitioner was unable to read and write Odia as she is required to do under Sub-section (b) of Section 11 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short, the Act). Opp. party No.1 also took a stand that on the date, nominations were scrutinised, she filed an objection beore the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of petitioner as she was unable to read and write Odia properly and correctly. The Returning Officer dictated a sentence to the petitioner but she could not write the sentence correctly. Inspite of that, the Returning Officer accepted her nomination. In that Election Petition, the petitioner filed counter denying the allegations relating to she being not able to read and write Odia. Further she took a specific stand that she has passed Class-VII in Nilakantheswar Bidyapitha and thus she is an educated lady and she is having the knowledge of reading and writing.
4. Opp. parties 2 and 3 also filed their counter. In the said counter, opp. parties 2 and 3 took the stand that the Election Officer dictated the Odia sentence to the petitioner, and, accordingly, the petitioner wrote correct dictated sentence. Copy of the written dictated statement along with views of Election Officer dated 13.01.2012 was stated to be enclosed as Annexure-1 to their counter.
5. The learned trial court on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed as many as six issues. The opp. party No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one G.Janakiamma Reddy was examined from her side as P.W.2. From the side of opp. party No.1, some documents were exhibited. From the side of the petitioner, she examined herself as D.W.1 and exhibited two certified copies of the judgments passed in an earlier Election Petition and Election Appeal. Opp. parties 2 and 3 despite filing their counter as indicated above, did not examine any witnesses from their side to prove their stand as well as the document dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure-1). A perusal of L.C.R. nowhere shows about filing of Annexure-1 dated 13.01.2012. During cross-examination of petitioner, the opp. party No.1 sought permission to make petitioner read and write Odia. The petitioner without any objection, read a portion (Ext.1/a) of Odia Daily, the Samaj dated 2.7.2012 (Ext.1). Similarly, as per dictation of counsel for opp. party No.1, the petitioner wrote Odia version of Section 2 (O) of the Act containing the definition of …..”. While the Odia version of the definition has been marked as Ext.2, the writing of the petitioner has been marked as Ext.2/a.
6. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court came to a finding that the reading and writing ability of the petitioner was not cent percent correct but was manageable. The learned trial court also on analysis of materials on record/evidence, answered the other issues against opp. party No.1, and, accordingly dismissed the Election Petition. Challenging the same, opp.party No.1 filed Election Appeal No.01 of 2012 before the learned District Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur. Before the learned District Judge, the opp. party No.1 as a whole concentrated on the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue No.3 and did not press the other points as regard use of money and muscle power in the election as allege
