A Sarpanch can be disqualified under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act for having more than two children after the cut-off date, provided adequate opportunity for hearing was given, and allegations remain undisputed.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 7^th November, 2025 as at Annexure-4 disqualifying him as the Sarpanch of Marlang Gram Panchayat as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, therefore to be quashed with a consequential direction to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to restore his position on the grounds inter alia that such exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is not in accordance with law.

2. As per the facts pleaded on record, consequent upon notification for the Panchayat Election in 2022 in the State, the petitioner filed nomination for the post of Sarpanch of the concerned G.P. and for him having polled maximum votes was declared elected with the result published and ever since assumed office, he continued discharging the duties and responsibilities attached to the post with sincerity and while matter stood thus, opposite party No.3 along with other unsuccessful candidates, who had contested the election with him, ganged up and hatched a plan and registered a complaint on 17^th June, 2025 addressed to the BDO with a request to initiate a proceeding under Section 26(2) of the Act for his disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act for having more than two children born to him after the cut-off date. It is further pleaded that even though the said complaint was not directly addressed to opposite party No.2 for action under Section 26 of the Act but still it was admitted and without inviting show cause, notice was issued vide Annexure-2, which was not received by him and for that, it was followed by notice dated 13^th October 2025 as per Annexure-3 with a direction to appear before opposite party No.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that till 24^th October, 2025, he was only served with a copy of the complaint without any supportive documents, for which, on his appearance, a request was made to opposite party No.2 to supply the same but hearing on disqualification was concluded without even confronting the reports received from the CHC, Kotagarh and the CDPO, ICDS, Kotagarh and also the Birth Register of AWC and therefore, under such circumstances, the impugned decision vide Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in law.

3. On the contrary, the opposite parties refuted the claim of the petitioner, filed the counter affidavit and pleaded therein that such a complaint was received by opposite party No.2 with a copy to the BDO, Kotagarh alleging disqualification of the petitioner for having more than two children and upon receiving the same, inquiry was directed and a joint inquiry report dated 25^th July, 2025 was received and it revealed that he has in total four children. It is further pleaded that after receipt of the said report as at Annexure-B/2, opposite party No.2 issued notice to the petitioner for hearing to be held on 12^th September, 2025, but it was him who denied to receive the same and did not appear on the date fixed. A copy of the said notice is at Annexure-C/2 and due to the absence of the petitioner, it is pleaded that the next date of hearing was fixed to 17^th October, 2025 with an intimation to the petitioner through the Tahasildar, Kotagarh and its compliance was reported to opposite party No.2 by letter No.2522 dated 14^th October, 2025. But for abundant caution, notice was also sent through Registered Post with postal receipt at Annexure-D/2. According to the