The Election Officer is not a necessary party in election disputes, and relevant safeguards ensure document production without their participation.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

Background involving the case is that the Election dispute vide Election Petition No.6 of 2022 was initiated on the ground indicated therein making the return candidate as well as the BDO-cum-Election Officer, Puri as Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 respectively. On entertainment of such Election dispute, notice being issued to both the parties therein, Opposite Party No.1 being the returned candidate herein on her appearance as a first attempt filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. challenging the maintainability of the Election dispute on the ground that there has been non-compliance of provision at Section 80 of C.P.C. so far it relates to Opposite Party No.2 therein. This application has been disposed of in rejection of such application giving raise filing the Writ Petition in hand.

2. Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the returned candidate bringing in reference to the position of Opposite Party No.2 in the Election dispute, reading through the ground made under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., further also taking this Court to the provision at Order 27 Rule 5-A of C.P.C. reading together with Section 32 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act contends once there is involvement of a party to a civil dispute, the provision at Section 80 of C.P.C. must be complied. It is reading through the aforesaid provision attempting to satisfy the Court the requirement of Section 80 of C.P.C. involving the dispute at hand, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted that there was failure of appreciating the above provision of law by the trial court requiring this Court interfering in such order and passing appropriate order in allowing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.

3. Mr.Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Election Petitioner here as Opposite Party No.1 however seriously objecting the contention raised by Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel, reading through the provision at Section 31, 32(2) read together with Section 27(4) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and Rule 56 of the ORISSA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ELECTION RULES while not disputing that there is no dispute on maintainability of application under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. in the required circumstance, in reference to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 involved herein, again taking this Court to the cause title to the Election Petition and the pleading involving Opposite Party No.2 therein contended that the Election never involved any dispute against Opposite Party No.2 therein and further for the clarity under the provision at Section 32 (2) of the Grama Panchayat Act, position of Opposite Party No.2 in the Election dispute becomes formal and inconsequential particularly so far as the dispute required to be resolved between the contesting parties in the Election dispute. Further in reference to the safeguards under Section 27(4) read together with Rule 56 of the Election Rules, there is however no dispute that there has been complete safeguards on the aspect of calling for records and/or production of records from the Election Officers through the above provisions even in absence of such party. In the above contest Mr.Dalai learned counsel for the Opposite Party while attempting to support the impugned order seriously objected the contention raised by Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and taking into account the settled position of law on the aspect of bringing any parties to Election dispute for both parties referring to provision at Section 32 (2) of the Act, this Court takes into account the provision at Section