Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Ahmad, Das, JJ.
BANCHHANIDHI SAMANTASIMHAR - APPELLANT
Versus
PANCHANAN PRADHAN AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 111 of 1964
Decided On : 01-09-1965
ELECTION LAW - DISQUALIFICATION - OFFICE OF PROFIT - ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1948 - SECTION 10(9)(C) - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION OFFICER'S POWER TO REJECT NOMINATION - RULE 31-E - CONSTRUCTION - ELECTION OF SARPANCH - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were elected as members of the Bramhagiri Grama Punchayat in 1959. In 1964, an election was held for the office of Sarpanch, with the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 as candidates. The election officer rejected the nomination of opposite party No. 1 on the ground that he held an office of profit under the State Government and was thus disqualified under Section 10(9)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer, however, set aside the election officer's order and directed a fresh election. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the opposite party No. 1 was disqualified from standing for election as Sarpanch under Section 10(9)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, as he held an office of profit under the State Government. The court also held that the election officer had the power to reject the nomination of opposite party No. 1, as he was not eligible to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat. The court further held that the combined effect of Section 10(1) and Section 10(9) of the Act made it clear that a person who was not eligible to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat was also ineligible to be elected to the office of Sarpanch.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party No. 1 was disqualified from standing for election as Sarpanch under Section 10(9)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act? 2. Whether the election officer had the power to reject the nomination of opposite party No. 1? 3. Whether the combined effect of Section 10(1) and Section 10(9) of the Act made it clear that a person who was not eligible to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat was also ineligible to be elected to the office of Sarpanch?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 10(9)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act expressly debars a person suffering from the disqualifications mentioned therein from standing or continuing as a member of the Grama Panchayat. 2. The election officer has the power to reject the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat. 3. The combined effect of Section 10(1) and Section 10(9) of the Act makes it clear that a person who is not eligible to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat is also ineligible to be elected to the office of Sarpanch.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was declared to have been duly elected as Sarpanch on 29-2-1964. The election was upheld and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Das, J. - The Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were elected as members of the Bramhagiri Grama Punchayat in the district of Puri in the year 1959. The election to the office of the Sarpanch was held on 29-2-1964 to which the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were nominated as candidates.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that opposite party No. 1 Panchanan Pradhan was, on the date of election, serving in the State Publicity Department as a paid worker and as such he was disqualified from standing for election for the office of Sarpanch under Clause (0) of Section 10(9) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the act?). It appears that on 29-2-1964 the opposite party No. 1 made an application before the Block Development Officer who was working as the Election Officer in this case, to extend the date of election by 15 days, so that the resignation of his office which he had tendered may be accepted. But the election officer rejected the nomination paper of opposite party No. 1 on the ground that he was holding an office of profit and was thus disqualified to stand for the election, under Clause (c) of Sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act-and declared the Petitioner as elected to the office of the Sarpanch, as there was no other contesting candidate. Against this order of the Election Officer; the opposite party No. 1 moved the Sub-Divisional Officer, Puri, under Rule 24 of the Rules and the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated 16-5-1964 set aside the order of the Election Officer and directed a fresh election to beheld. It is against this order of the Sub-divisional Officer the present application has been filed under Article 226 of the. Constitution.
3. Section 9 of the Act states that on the first establishment of Grama Sasan, the prescribed authority shall cause to be prepared in the prescribed form a register of population of persons ordinarily residing in the Grama and another of adults ordinarily residing therein. Certain disqualifications have been provided at this stage and a person affected by such disqualification is debarred from being enrolled in the said register of adults. The holding of an office of profit under the State Government is that a disqualification at this stage. Therefore, there was no bar to the opposite party No. 1 being enrolled as an adult member u/s 9 of the Act. Section 10(1) provides that as soon as may be after its establishment, every Grama Sasan shall elect in the prescribed manner from among its members an Executive Committee which shall be known as the Grama Panchayat and the Grama Panchayat shall elect in the prescribed manner a Sarpanch and a Naib Sarpanch from among its members. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 10(9) of the Act. Sub-section (9) imposes certain disqualification on a person from being a member of the Grama Panchayat. It says-
(9) A person shall not be eligible to stand for election or continue to be a member of the Grama Panchayat or a Panchayat of an Adalti Panchayat constituted under this Act, if
(a)....
(b)....
(c) he holds any office of profit under the State or the Central Government or a Local authority other than that of a Sarpanch, Naib Sarpanch or Member of a Grama Panchayat or President or Panch of an Adalti Punchayat;
(d) he has been dismissed from service of the State Government, Central Government or a Local authority;
(e) he has been in arrears of any tax, fee or rate due by him to the Grama Sasan for a continuous period of two years; or
(f) he is in the habit or encouraging litigation in the villages and has been declared to be so on enquiry by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner;
Provided further that the disqualification under Clause (d) may be removed by the State Government in the prescribed manner:
Provided further that the disqualification under Clause (e) shall cease upon payment of the arrears or on remission thereof in accordance with the provisions of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
