A candidate for Sarpanch must have the ability to read and write in Odia to avoid disqualification under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 16^th July, 2025 passed in connection with Election Appeal No.1 of 2025 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara vide Annexure-4 confirming the decision dated 7^th March, 2025 at Annexure-3 declaring his election as null and void directed in Election Misc. Case No.4 of 2022 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside being not in consonance with law.

2. Briefly stated, opposite party No.1 challenging the election of the petitioner filed Election Misc. Case No.4 of 2022 alleging therein that he is a defaulter of loan and unable to read and write in Odia, hence, invites disqualification in view of Section 39 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned Civil Judge received evidence from both the sides and finally disposed of the election dispute vide Annexure-3 with the conclusion that the petitioner’s nomination and candidature at election as the Sarpanch of Suhagpur G.P. held in 2022 is void with a direction to hold re-election to fill up the said post. Against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned court below but it stood confirmed by the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-4, which is under challenge at present.

3. A copy of the election petition is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through. The challenge to the election of the petitioner is on account of him being a defaulter having failed to pay the arrear dues in respect of a loan availed from Suhagpur Cooperative Society and unable to read and write in Odia. In so far as, the first ground vis-à-vis defaulter in repayment of the loan amount, it could not be established before the learned Civil Judge and such plea was abandoned before the Court of Appeal. Before this Court, the challenge to the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 is confined to the decision on disqualification on the premise that the petitioner is unable to read and write Odia. The Court is, therefore, to consider, whether, on any such ground, the decision vide Annexure-4 of the learned court below can be sustained in law.

4. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that no material facts have been pleaded by opposite party No.1 while alleging that the petitioner is unable to read and write in Odia. The further submission is that there has been evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner is having the capacity to read and write Odia but the same has been ignored by both the learned courts below. Referring to a decision in Kuntala Mallik Vrs. Smt. Bharati Behera of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7580 of 2024 dated 14^th August, 2024, it is further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and as a result, concluded that the petitioner cannot read and write in Odia especially when there is no standard prescribed under the Act within the meaning of Section 11(b) thereof necessarily to conduct a test regarding one’s ability to read and write Odia, an exercise which has been undertaken by the learned Civil Judge and therefore, the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 deserve to be set at naught.

6. Recorded the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 would submit that there is no an