The court ruled that election disputes, including delay in petitions, should follow the statutory remedies provided under the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, emphasizing the appeal process over writ jurisdiction in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.29.09.2022 so passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore in Election Misc. Case No.20 of 2022 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, learned Court below while condoning the delay in filing the election Petition, held the election petition as maintainable. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging the election of the Writ Petitioner as Sarpanch of Tentulida Gram Panchayat, Opp. Party No.1 filed Election Misc. Petition in Election Misc. Case No.20 of 2022.

2. It is the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the result of the election though was published on 28.01.2022 and Petitioner was declared as the Sarapanch, but Opp. Party No.1 on the face of the provisions contained under Section 30 & 31 of the ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1964 (in short, “the Act”), filed the election petition on 04.05.2022.

2.1. It is contended that as provided under Section 31 of the Act, an election petition is required to be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of the result. However, since the election petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application was filed along with the election petition by Opp. Party No.1 under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay vide Annexure-2.

2.2. It is contended that though the election petition was filed along with the application under Annexure-2, but in support of the illness of the Petitioner from 22.02.2022, no medical certificate was initially enclosed to the said petition. Only after filing of the election Petition along with Annexure-2, a medical certificate was filed by the election Petitioner/Opp. Party No.1, showing that he was treated as an outdoor patient in Fakir Mohan Medical College & Hospital, Balasore vide O.P.D No.0204791 dated 22.02.2022. It is contended that such a certificate was produced having been issued by Fakir Mohan Medical College & Hospital, Balasore vide OPD No.0204791. But in the R.T.I information so provided under Annexure-7, the authorities of Fakir Mohan Medical College and Hospital, Balasore clearly indicated that Opp. Party No.1 was never treated as an outdoor patient vide OPD No. 0204791 dt.22.02.2022.

2.3. It is accordingly contended that since the certificate produced by Opp. Party No.1 showing his illness for the period in question in Fakir Mohan College and Hospital, Balasore was disputed by the self-same Hospital vide Annexure-7 and the same was duly brought to the notice of the learned Court below, but without proper appreciation of the same, learned Court below condoned the delay vide the impugned order dt.29.09.2022 under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that since the ground taken by Opp. Party No.1 for condonation of delay was proved wrong with issuance of Annexure-7, the delay in filing the election petition should not have been condoned. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

3. Mr. D. Samal, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 on the other hand raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, relying on the provisions contained under Section 38 of the Act. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Sub-Section 3 & 4 of Section 38 of the Act, it is contended that the impugned order being an appealable one, the Petitioner has to approach the District Judge having jurisdiction over the issue. Section 38 of the Act reads as follows:

38. Decision of ’[Civil Judge (Junior Division)] (1) If the [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] after making such enquiry, as he deems necessary, finds in respect of any person, whose election is called in question by a petition that his election was valid, he shall dismiss the petition as against such person and may award costs at his discretion.

(2) If t