IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15191 of 2025 Jagu Kumar @ Jagu Kumbhar …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate -versus- Collector & D.M., Kalahandi and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. S. Dash, Adv. for Caveator CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 03.06.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dtd.14.02.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, election of the Petitioner as Ward Member of Utkela Gram Panchayat, under Kesinga Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kalahandi was set aside and subsequently notification was issued on 02.04.2025 under Annexure-2 in disqualifying the Petitioner to hold the post of Naib-Sarpanch. 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as Naib-Sarpanch of the G.P. a notice was issued by p. 2 p. 2 Opposite Party No.1 on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-5, by fixing the date for hearing of G.P. (Election Petition) Case No.10 / 2024 to 24.01.2025. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner on his appearance prays for time to file her reply. But thereafter basing on the report submitted by the BDO, Kesinga-Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter dtd.11.02.2025 that Petitioner has got three children, Opposite Party No.1 without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to disprove the report so submitted by Opposite Party No.2, disposed of the proceeding vide the impugned order dtd.14.02.2025, just after two days of the receipt of the report. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since in the proceeding in question, Petitioner was noticed to appear on 24.01.2025 and the report was submitted by the BDO-Opposite Party No.2 on 11.02.2025, without affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to disprove the allegation that the Petitioner has got three children, the proceeding could not have been disposed of vide the impugned order dtd.14.02.2025 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.3, who happens to be Ex-Sarpanch p. 3 p. 3 of the Gram Panchayat contended that on her appearance on 17.01.2025, since Petitioner never filed his reply to the allegation and in the report submitted by Opposite Party No.2 on 11.02.2025, it was found that Petitioner has got three children after the cut-off date, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order and consequential notification issued under Annexure-2. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State also made similar submission that since Petitioner after her appearance on 17.01.2025 never filed her reply and participated in the proceeding, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a Ward Member in the Gram Panchayat in question, vide notice dtd.17.01.2025, she was directed to appear before the Collector –Opposite Party No.1 in G.P. (Election Petition) Case No.10 of 2024 on 24.01.2025. 7.1. It is found that after such appearance of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.1 basing on the report submitted by Opposite Party No.2, vide his letter No.466 dtd.11.02.2025 held the Petitioner ineligible and disposed of the proceeding with passing of the impugned order on 14.02.2025. p. 4 p. 4 7.2. It is the view of this Court that after appearance of the Petitioner on 24.01.2025, Petitioner should have been allowed reasonable time to file her reply. Not only that basing on the letter submitted by Opposite Party No.2 on 11.02.2025 and without providing a copy thereof to the Petitioner to have her say with regard to the finding of the report, the proceeding could not have been disposed of, just after two days of the receipt of the report. 7.3. In view of the aforesaid illegalities or irregularities which are apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.14.02.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1 and consequential Notification dtd.02.04.2025 issued under Annexure-2. While quashing the order under Annexure-1 and the Notification under Annexure-2, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take up G.P. (Election) Petition Case No.10/2024 and decide the same in accordance with law. Since Petitioner admittedly has not filed the reply, this Court permits the Petitioner to file her reply within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of supply of the report dtd.11.02.2025 and the complaint basing on which the proceeding in question was initiated. On his filing of the reply, Opposite Party No.1 shall take all possible step to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law on or before 15.07.2025, if there is no other legal p. 5 p. 5 impediment. Petitioner is directed to appear before Opposite Party No.1 on or before 10.06.2025 along with a copy of this order. On his appearance, copy of the complaint and the report as directed be supplied to the Petitioner forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Vacation Judge Subrat