The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6495 of 2025 Sumati Xalxo …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- Collector-cum-Dist. Magistrate, Sundargarh & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Ms. U. Panda, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.03.2025 Order No 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 21.02.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 vide Annexure-1 in Misc. Case no.1 of 2025. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Tainsar Gram Panchayat was issued with a notice on 03.02.2025 by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3, directing him to appear on 07.02.2025. On the said date, petitioner duly appeared through her counsel. // 2 // 4.1. It is contended that even though petitioner appeared on 07.02.2025 through a counsel, but Opp. Party No.1 fixed the next date to 14.02.2025 and heard the matter finally on the said date with passing of the impugned order on 21.02.2025, whereby petitioner has been disqualified to continue as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 4.2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since reasonable opportunity of hearing was never given by allowing her to file the reply to the allegations made against him, with supply of the alleged complaint, the impugned order passed under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Ms. Umarani Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand contended that seeking disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Opposite Party No.2 had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29834 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 under Annexure-2, directed Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the representation filed by the present Opposite Party No.2. Pursuant to such direction and since this Court had directed to dispose of the representation within a period of six (6) weeks, Opposite Party No.1 issued the notice dt. 30.01.2025 under Annexure-3, fixing the date to 07.02.2025. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 5.1 It is contended that on 07.02.2025 though petitioner appeared through her advocate, but no objection was filed to the allegation made by Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, on 14.02.2025, the matter was heard in presence of the petitioner’s counsel and private Opposite Party No.2. After due hearing of the matter, the impugned order was passed on 21.02.2025. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said order. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate also made similar submission as made by Ms. Umarani Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 in support of the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made this Court finds that, Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Tainsar G.P. in the district of Sundargarh. Opposite Party No.2 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 29834 of 2024 with a prayer to disqualify the Petitioner for her having more than two children. This Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 directed Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation alleged to have been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of six (6) weeks by giving due opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.2/Petititoner in the said writ petition. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 7.1 It is found that in terms of the said order, petitioner was issued with the notice on 30.01.2025 under Annexure-3, fixing the date of appearance to 07.02.2025. As found from Annexure-3, the said notice was served on the Petitioner on 03.02.2025. Pursuant to the said notice, Petitioner appeared through her counsel on 07.02.2025. On the face of such appearance on 07.02.2025 and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply to the allegation made by Opposite Party No.2, the matter was fixed to 14.02.2025 and on that date, the matter was finally heard with passing of the impugned order on 21.02.2025. 7.2 This Court after going through the order sheet available under Annexure-1 finds that petitioner has not been given due opportunity of hearing by Opposite Party No.1 prior to passing of the impugned order. Since it is the allegation of Opposite Party No.2 that Petitioner has got more than two children and she is liable to be disqualified, as per the considered view of this Court, Petitioner should have been given reasonable opportunity to place her stand with filing of the reply. Nothing was also found from the notice dt. 30.01.2025, regarding supply of the alleged complaint made by Opposite Party No.2 to the Petitioner. 7.3. Not only that, after appearance of the Petitioner on 07.02.2025, petitioner should have been allowed Page 4 of 6 // 5 // reasonable time to file her reply to the alleged complaint. But as found, the next date was fixed to 14.02.2025 and on the said date, the matter was finally heard with passing of the impugned order on 21.02.2025 under Annexure-1. 7.4. In view of such material irregularity which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 21.02.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2025. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the order passed by this Court on 06.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 29834 of 2024. 7.5. However, considering the dispute involved, this Court permits the petitioner to file her reply to the complaint within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint so made by Opposite Party No.2 from the office of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to provide a copy of the complaint so made by Opposite Party No.2 to the petitioner by 26.03.2025. Petitioner be permitted to file her objection by 11.04.2025. On filing of the objection, Opposite Party No.1 shall take a lawful decision on the same by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.2, in which this Court expresses no opinion. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7.6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 12:21:04 Page 6 of 6