The court upheld the disqualification of an elected ward member for having more than two children born after the cut-off date, concluding that due process was followed in the disqualification proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-3 in Misc. Case (OGP Act) No.16 of 2022 of the learned Collector & District Magistrate, Nuapada, namely, opposite party No.2 and further to direct the said authority not to disengage her from the post of Ward Member of Ward No.4 of Dharambandha Gram Panchayat situate under Nuapada Block in the district of Kalahandi on the grounds stated therein.

2. Opposite party No.5 filed an application under Section 26 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) registered as Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 alleging disqualification of the petitioner under Section 25(1)(v) thereof, which was allowed by opposite party No.2. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2023 when opposite party No.2 did not provide her an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during such proceeding and it was disposed of by order dated 12^th March, 2024 with a direction for rehearing the matter. But, after such remand, without compliance of the same, the impugned order as per Annexure-3 was passed. According to the petitioner, she was selected as Ward Member of Ward No.4 of the Panchayat in the year 2022 and in that election, opposite party No.5 contested with her. After such election, such an application under Section 26 of the Act was filed by the said opposite party on the ground that the petitioner invites disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act for having three children born after the cut-off date on 28^th April, 2010, 13^th June, 2014 and 3^rd child on 19^th August, 2016 respectively. Considering such application of opposite party No.5 and after receiving evidence on the allegation, opposite party No.2 finally held that the petitioner is declared as disqualified being elected as Ward Member of Ward No.4 of the G.P. under Nuapada Panchayat Samiti and her election to the said post to be void vide Annexure-3 directed in connection with Misc. Case (OGP Act) No.16 of 2022. The final order was passed by opposite party No.2 after the remand of the matter by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2023 by order dated 12^th March, 2024 at Annexure-2. In fact, the petitioner was earlier declared disqualified by order dated 29^th March 2023 vide Annexure-1, but upon remand and on a rehearing, opposite party No.2 reiterated such disqualification of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 17^th October, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3. The said declaration of disqualification under section 25(1)(v) of the Act is under challenge by the petitioner.

3. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, namely, District Panchayat Officer, Nuapada, opposite party No.3 and the same is gone through.

4. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.5 besides Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

5. According to opposite party No.2, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3, which is based on the reports received from the competent authorities with other evidence in support of such reports and sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, who also filed her show-cause reply and participated in the proceeding. It is pleaded that the petitioner did not specifically deny the allegation of opposite party No.5 and it was an evasive reply by her before opposite party No.2, inasmuch as, the B.D.O and C.D.P.O, Nuapada submitted their reports along with relevant extracts of the records of Anganwadi Centre revealing that she is having three children and all of them born after the cut-off date. It is alleged that the petitioner appeared through her Advocate but attempted to linger the proceeding requesting repeated adjournments, hence, therefore, it is false to allege that she has not been provided opportunity of hearing in the proceeding under Section 26 of the Act. Oppos