The Odisha Municipal Act requires only summary allegations in election petitions, contrasting with the detailed pleading requirements under the RP Act, making the dismissal of the petition improper at advanced hearing stages.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 20^th September, 2024 as at Annexure-6 passed in connection with Election Petition No.02 of 2022 by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, whereby, the proceeding initiated under Section 19 of the ODISHA MUNICIPAL ACT , 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been dismissed upon rejection of the election petition in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds stated.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was one among the contesting candidates for the post of Chairman of Sundargarh Municipality held on 24^th March, 2022, wherein, opposite party No.1 was declared elected having polled 7812 votes and opposite party No.2 having secured 6577 votes. The petitioner was an independent candidate, whereas, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 contested the election sponsored by the respective political party and she polled 6542 votes and lost the election as a result. Being dissatisfied of the election result, the petitioner presented an application under Section 19 of the Act to declare the election of opposite party No.1 as null and void considering the abnormalities and irregularities noticed during the election and to direct re-election besides such other reliefs. Upon receiving the election petition, a copy of which is at Annexure-1, the learned District Judge, Sundargarh received show cause reply from opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4, whereas, opposite party No.2 was a set ex parte and thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was received from the side of the petitioner. After the closure of evidence from the side of the petitioner, opposite party No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging absence of a cause of action with specific pleading on corrupt practices allegedly adopted and considering the same, the learned court below disposed it of by order dated 17^th March, 2023 as at Annexure-3 with the conclusion that the election petition is not liable for rejection and accordingly, directed opposite party No.1 to lead evidence. Referring to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’), the rejection of the election petition was pressed into service by opposite party No.1 but it did not find favour with the learned court below and hence, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, opposite party No.1 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10942 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 13^th March, 2024, the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to both the sides. Consequent to the Court’s above order vide Annexure-4, the learned District Judge, Sundargarh reconsidered the plea of opposite party No.1 and at last concluded that the election petition deserves rejection by a decision dated 20^th September, 2024 at Annexure-6, which is presently under challenge.

3. Opposite party No.1 filed the counter affidavit and it has been pleaded therein that there is lack of specific pleading as to the material facts to justify the allegation of corrupt practices and therefore, in view of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the election petition is to be rejected and hence, it has been rightly considered by the learned court below leading to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-6. Referring to the order dated 13^th March, 2023 in W.P.(C) No.10942 of 2023, it is pleaded by opposite party No.1 that the learned District Judge, S