IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21382 of 2025 Sumati Xalxo …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate -versus-

1. The Collector, …. Opposite Parties Sundargarh 1. The Block Development Officer, Office of the Panchayat, Lathika, Sundargarh

2. Prahlad Oram Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

19.01.2026 Order No.

05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner herein, who was elected as Sarpanch, Tainsara Gram Panchayat of Lathikata Panchayat Samiti, Sundargarh, assails the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Collector, Sundargarh at Annexure-1 disqualifying her in exercise of the power conferred under Section

25(1)(v) ¹ of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 on the ground that the Petitioner has three children after the cutoff date i.e. 21.04.1995.

3. It is submitted that the case at hand has a chequered history in as much as the Petitioner had earlier moved this Court twice. On a bare perusal of the same, it seen that the impugned order has been passed on remand from this Court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that due opportunity was not given to the Petitioner to fortify her stand that the first child was adopted by the Petitioner, and as such cannot be taken as a disqualification.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed controverting the allegation, inter alia, relating to non-affording of an opportunity.

6. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court is not persuaded to hold that due opportunity to the Petitioner was not provided.

7. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that 1 25. Disqualification for membership of Grama Panchayat :– (1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected or nominated as, a Sarpanch or any other member of the Grama Panchayat constituted under this Act, if he–

(a) to (u). xxx xxx xxx (v) has more than two Children:

Provided that the disqualification under Clause (v) shall not apply to any person who has more than two Children on the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 or, as the case may be, within a period of one year of such commencement, unless he begets an additional child after the said period of one year.

admittedly the Petitioner has two biological children born on 12.03.2009 and 28.12.2014.

8. It is stated that the disqualification allegedly earned by her is because of the adoption of a child on 14.02.2005. For protecting the privacy of the children, their names are not mentioned and in fact this Court expects the executive to redact the identity while referring to the children.

9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the first child, who is the girl child, was adopted by the Petitioner and her husband and that ought not to weigh with the authorities in disqualifying her in resorting to the provision in question i.e. Section 25(1)(V) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964¹

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that since admittedly the adopted child becomes the child of the adopted parents. She has to be counted as a member of the family while considering the disqualification.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the constitutional provision as contained in Article 15(4)² and 243N³ of the Constitution

2 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex

or place of birth.- xxx xxx xxx

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from

making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and

submits that they envisaged protective discrimination and the case at hand squarely falls under one and if the view taken by the Collector is to be accepted, then it would discourage the adoption of children and more so a girl child in the case at hand.

12. On the face of it, such submission appears to be attractive. But on a close scrutiny, it can be seen that the cutoff da