Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Added ibid. 27 – Statutory rules not followed – Disqualification cannot be sustained : 2001 (I) OLR 580. (iii) Secs. 25, 26 and 32 - Matter of disqualification of a Sarpanch on the ground that he has more than two Children - Petitioner who has raised the question of disqualification had not filed any nomination - As such he cannot challenge the election by election Petition - Difference between Secs. 25(2) and 26(2) explained - In the instant case a represen- tation was made by the Petitioner to B.D.O. who enquired into the matter and found that the third Child of Sarpanch was born in 1995 - It was duty of B.D.O. to report the matter to the Collector who has to take action under Sec. 26(2) and he is empowered to declare disqualification - Case referred to Collector for holding enquiry and to make final decision as to disqualification : 2000 (I) OLR 463 : 89 (2000) CLT 696. (iv) Secs. 25 (1) (v) and 32(2) - In an election for Sarpanch the Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch and out of 4 Candidates Opp. Party 1 was the nearest in Votes - Opp. Party filed election Petition challenging the election on the ground that Petitioner was disqualified to be Candidate on the grounds of having more than two Children - Prior to the amendment of 1993 Petitioner has one Child and subsequently his wife gave birth to twin Children - Trial Court allowed the Petition setting aside the election - Appeal was filed - During pendency of appeal a Petition for stay of opera- tion of the judgment of Trial Court was filed - Contention of Petitioner that the twin Children should be taken as one and the appellate Court found prima facie case and refused stay - That order, at this stage cannot be characterised as illegal or without jurisdiction. But if the present Petitioner would not have been allowed to contest the election then the Votes Polled by him would have been distributed among other Candidates - This matter has to be considered - Hon'ble Court directed the appellate Court to reconsider the stay matter : 1998 (II) OLR 690. (v) Sec. 25 (1) (v) (as amended by Orissa Act 6 of 1994) and Sec. 39 - Grounds for declaring election void - Whether the Party has more than two Children for being disqualified involves factual adjudication - Munsif to decide whether the nomination paper has been improperly rejected - This can be raised in election dispute - Writ not maintainable : 1997 (I) OLR 310 : 83 (1997) CLT 494. (vi) Section 25 (1) (h)-(i) Disqualification for holding any Office of profit under local authority - Local authority not defined in Orissa Grama Panchayat Act - It is to be found in Section 2 (3) of Orissa General Clauses Act : 1990 (II) OLR 453. (vii) Section 25 (1) (h) - Disqualification - Petitioner serving in Orissa Cotton Mill - This is not local authority - Cotton Mill taken over as sick industry under Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act - Under pro- THE ORISSA GRAMA PANCHAYATS ACT, 1964 GRAMA PANCHAYATS MANUAL 28