O RDER : 1. This intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21078 of 2025. 2. Facts in nutshell as revealed from the pleadings reveal that the respondent No.1, namely, Shantilata Mishra, raised dispute being Election Misc. Case No.4 of 2022 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara under Section 31 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (for short “the GP Act”) against the appellant and four others. The cause of action for said election dispute is stated to have arisen when the appellant is declared as Sarapanch of Suhagpur under Kakatpur Block on 24.02.2022. As many as eight issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara. Vide judgment dated 07.03.2025, the said Election Dispute was partly allowed on contest against the respondent no.1 inter alia on the issue that the declared Sarapanch, namely, Shek Abutehara is unable to read and write odia thereby, he could not have been declared Sarapanch of Suhagpur Gram Panchayat during Panchayat Election in the year 2022, in view of provisions contained in Section 11 of the GP Act. 2.1. The election appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara was carried before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara by way of Election Appeal No.1 of 2025 by the appellant herein. After threadbare discussion, learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara vide judgment dated 16.07.2025 dismissed the appeal sustaining the judgment dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara. 2.2. Challenging said judgment dated 16.07.2025, the appellant approached this Court by way of filing writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.21078 of 2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.01.2026 with the following observation(s): i. The appellant examined as O.P.W.3 was confronted with a book named, ‘Chabila Madhu Barnabodha’ and Odia Daily newspaper ‘The Samaj’ dated 08.02.2024. In cross-examination, such confrontation was made to the petitioner, who admitted his inability to write a sentence. In cross-examination, such confrontation was made to the petitioner, who admitted his inability to write a sentence. The appellant-petitioner could not read text from the above book and also the newspaper, but took a plea that he had an injury in his right eye nearly two months before such examination. ii. In cross-examination, the appellant as O.P.W.3 admitted the fact that he is unable to write the sentence such as ‘Mahatama Gandhi Gramin Rozagar Yojana re ama Panchayat ku aei barsh kete tanka asichi’. The appellant was unable to write complete sentence. Such fact is admitted by the appellant. iii. The appellant was unable to read the book and newspaper. Considering such evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara arrived at a decision that the appellant does not know to read and write Odia. Having analysed the evidence on record that the appellant was unable to read and write Odia on confrontation with the materials like the aforesaid book and the local daily newspaper, conclusion was arrived at by the learned trial Court that the appellant was disqualified to be Sarapanch in terms of Section 11 of the GP Act. iv. The learned Single Judge referred to Usha Sahoo Vs. Ambika Sahoo and another, 2011 (I) OLR 499 , Mrs. Suryakanti Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2005 (Supp.) OLR 906 , Labangalata Mallick Vs. Mandakini Mallick and others, 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR 73, Kalabati Jena Vs. Dhaneswar Jena and others, 2009 (Supp.II) OLR 344 and Uma Ballav Rath Vs. Maheswar Mohanty and others, (1999) 88 CLT 329 (SC), Rokkam Ramprasad @ R. Ramprasad Vs. State of Odisha and others, 2010 (I) OLR787 and Damburu Majhi Vs. Tarini Charan Majhi, 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR 266. 2.3. Having noticed the aforesaid judgments and culling out ratio that only reading is not sufficient but one is required to know and able to write Odia, the factual details was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Ultimately, the writ petition stood dismissed vide judgment dated 06.01.2026, which is subject matter of challenge in the writ appeal. 3. Stemming on the grounds of appeal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent no.1 having not been able to produce any material to establish the disqualification of the appellant, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. 3. Stemming on the grounds of appeal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent no.1 having not been able to produce any material to establish the disqualification of the appellant, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. He submitted that it is factually incorrect that the appellant does not know to read and write Odia. 3.1. It is submitted that though evidence was laid vide Ext.C, i.e., medical prescriptions to demonstrate that the appellant had injury in retina and eye ball, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same appropriately. The conclusion arrived at that the appellant could not read and write in Odia language is a myth. He empathetically submitted that on this score the appellant, a returned candidate, should be restored to his position by reversing the perverse finding of fact. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent no.5 supported the reasons ascribed in judgment dated 06.01.2026 rendered in the writ petition and urged not to show indulgence in the concurrent finding of fact by the learned trial Court affirmed by the appellate Court. 5. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent no.5. 6. A short point is involved in the matter, if the appellant could be able to demonstrate that he could read and write Odia, then it was unjustified to adjudge him disqualified for the post of Sarapanch in terms of Clause (b) and Clause (c) of Section 11 of the GP Act. 7. Meticulously considered the material available on record and diligently considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of record, it reveals that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nimapara recorded the finding of the fact as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the Opposite Party no.1 by showing him the Chabila Madhu Barnabodha but the O.P. No.1 unable to read the sentences which have mentioned on the last page of Madhu Barnabodha book and he took the plea that he is suffering from eye injuries specifically in the right eye. But he could have read out with the help of his left eye. But he could have read out with the help of his left eye. He also cannot read out the sentences which are mentioned in the Samaj dtd.08.02.24. He was also unable to write “Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Rojagar Yozana re ama Panchayat ku kete tanka asichi”. He could not read the Samaj dtd.08.02.2024 in Court. So from the evidences it is clear that the opposite party no.1 is not able to read and write Odia.” 7.1. Even if a person having educational qualification, if he is unable to read and write Odia, he would fall within the mischief of Section 11 of the GP Act, to be eligible as Member or Sarapanch as held in Saraswati Sahoo Vs. Lipika Dash and another , AIR 2020 Ori. 84 : 2005 (Supp.) OLR 906 , Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal , 2010 (I) OLR 163 and Rokkam Ramprasad @ R. Ramprasad Vs. State of Odisha , 2010 (I) OLR 787 , the learned trial Court having came to observe as follows: “The O.P.W.3 (O.P.No.1) has exhibited his own handwriting Odia language which is marked as Ext.A and Ext.A postulates all odia alphabets and odia words like Kama, Khela, Gaiee, Ghasa, Chasa and Chata which are written by opposite party no.1 in his own handwriting and no cross examination on Ext.A is made by petitioner nor any suggestion to that effect has been given in his entire cross examination. He has also exhibited Barnabodha vide Ext.B and four medical prescription vide Ext.C which prescribes injury on retina and eye ball side of opposite party No.1 who is returned candidate, by getting majority of votes.” 7.2. In connection with such observation, the learned trial Court came to hold that: “However mere filing of certificates does not convey that the person is able to read and write odia. Because it is the very language of that Section 11(c)(ii) is that a person will be disqualified as a Member of Grama Sasan if he unable to read and write odia. *** The Ext.A is not prepared in the Court and the same cannot be considered the evidence. So from the above discussion it is concluded that the opposite party no.1 is unable to read and write oriya.” 7.3. Such finding being challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara, reappreciating the evidence the same got confirmed in appeal. *** The Ext.A is not prepared in the Court and the same cannot be considered the evidence. So from the above discussion it is concluded that the opposite party no.1 is unable to read and write oriya.” 7.3. Such finding being challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara, reappreciating the evidence the same got confirmed in appeal. The learned Single Judge has discussed the fact- finding returned by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court supported by evidence on record and observed as follows in the judgment dated 06.01.2026: “12. The Act does not prescribe any standard of reading and writing Odia. It has not been specifically provided anywhere in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even though, dictation in open court and writing down by the returned candidate has been discouraged in one of such decisions but it has not been fully disapproved. There is no hard and fast rule to ascertain the manner by which a court can ascertain whether a person who contested GP election knows how to read and write Odia. If in course of cross-examination, a document is confronted to the elected candidate to find out his standard and whether he is able to read, an exercise, which has not been totally ruled out even by considering the case laws referred to hereinabove. In the humble view of the Court, any such evidence received cannot be discarded. The Act and the Rules may not have any prescription with regard to the standard necessary to prove and establish the elected candidate’s disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act but according to the Court, an election petitioner cannot be restrained to confront a book on literature or lines from a local newspaper to the returned candidate, the purpose being to ascertain whether he is able to read Odia. Similarly, if either on the request of the election petitioner or the Court suo moto is inclined to dictate words of a sentence to ascertain whether the returned candidate is able to write, it should not be outrightly denied. 13. Similarly, if either on the request of the election petitioner or the Court suo moto is inclined to dictate words of a sentence to ascertain whether the returned candidate is able to write, it should not be outrightly denied. 13. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that even with some mistakes, if one is able to read a sentence and such reading conveys a meaning for an ordinary person to understand when read out or in case of writing in Odia, the sentence is complete with few mistakes, it would be enough to conclude that such a person is able to read and write in Odia. A minimum standard is necessary for a member of the GP to discharge the functions assigned under the Act. A member or a Sarpanch for that matter, who is unable to read and write in Odia cannot be expected to discharge any such duty satisfactorily. In fact, under the Act, a member of GP is assigned with so many functions and if one is not able to read and write Odia, it would be difficult to perform and therefore, such is a ground for disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act. If one is able to read but unable to write and has become a member of the GP and holding a responsible post, he is certainly to invite disqualification. One, as a member of the GP, is required to have the ability to read and also write Odia. Mere reading is not sufficient as Section 11(b) of the Act stipulates that the member must know how to write in Odia as well. If someone is having no academic qualification but he is able to read and write reasonably and it is revealed from the material evidence even with the dictation in open Court or complying the direction to read a book or a newspaper and the same is satisfactorily performed with the mistakes here and there, the same can be condoned, concluding that the person is able to read and write Odia. When someone having educational qualification but is unable to read or write Odia would also invite disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act. It is not about one’s qualification to hold a post of the GP but the ability to read and write Odia because he or she is required to discharge variety of functions. When someone having educational qualification but is unable to read or write Odia would also invite disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act. It is not about one’s qualification to hold a post of the GP but the ability to read and write Odia because he or she is required to discharge variety of functions. A Sarpanch, who is the head of the GP and a responsible office bearer must have to know how to read and write Odia. While considering the evidence on record, one way of the other with or without undertaking any such exercise like open dictation or a direction to the returned candidate to write a sentence, the same is to be appreciated having regard to the fact that some mistakes in reading and writing are bound to occur. But it has to be kept in mind that such reading and writing should convey a meaning at the end. The literacy of a person is not the criteria but disqualification under Section 11(b) of the Act is to prevail whether a literate or an illiterate, who is unable to read and write Odia, the intent and purpose of the Act is to ensure that the duty and responsibility assigned under the Act are to be discharged satisfactorily by the men in charge of the GP either as a member or Sarpanch, whosoever. 14. This Court is of the view that the evidence received vide Exts.A and D could not have been accepted by the learned courts below and rightly denied since the former is a piece of paper with the writings of alphabets only by the returned candidate carrying no any endorsement as to when, where and in whose presence it was prepared and the latter is a School Leaving Certificate which is not relevant to consider the ability of one’s reading and writing in Odia and could not even be proved by the Headmaster of the school examined as a witness, namely, CW.1. No other contemporaneous document has been produced by the petitioner with or without the process of the court to show and satisfy that he is able to write in Odia, which could have been managed him having been elected as the Sarpanch of the GP and a party to its decisions ever since 2022. No other contemporaneous document has been produced by the petitioner with or without the process of the court to show and satisfy that he is able to write in Odia, which could have been managed him having been elected as the Sarpanch of the GP and a party to its decisions ever since 2022. In course of cross-examination, the petitioner rather honestly admitted that he is unable to write a sentence shown to him by the learned Civil Judge. The learned courts below on a subjective satisfaction reached at concluded that the petitioner does not know how to read and write except putting his signatures on the resolutions of the GP. It is quite common that even illiterates put signatures even though they do not know how to write Odia, the fact, which has also been taken cognizance of by the learned court below. Someone, who is not able to read and write properly and openly admitted his inability to write a sentence on being confronted with during trial, the Court is of the conclusion that when such is the case of the petitioner, the learned courts below did not err to hold that he stands disqualified under Section 11(b) of the Act. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision at Annexure-4 confirming the judgment of the learned Civil Judge at Annexure-3 as it does not appear to be perverse or in any way unreasonable for having adopted open dictation and direction to the petitioner to write down a sentence and also to read a book and a newspaper. Having considered the evidence as a whole and submissions of the learned counsels for both the sides, the irresistible conclusion of the Court is that the impugned judgments at Annexures-3 and 4 suffer from no legal infirmity.” 7.4. The concurrent finding of the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned appellant Court has been further confirmed by the learned Single Judge with well discussed and reasoned order. 8. There is no cavil that unless there is error of law apparent the writ Court would be loathe to interfere with the order assailed. It is finding of fact returned by the competent Court that the appellant could not able to read the book and write a complete sentence. 8. There is no cavil that unless there is error of law apparent the writ Court would be loathe to interfere with the order assailed. It is finding of fact returned by the competent Court that the appellant could not able to read the book and write a complete sentence. The purpose of incorporating Clauses (b) and (c)(ii) of Section 11 of the GP Act is that a Member or Sarapanch must be able to make correspondences in Odia to different stakeholders and also able to read the same. It is not only desirable but also necessity to read and write in Odia, even though a person is educationally qualified. A Sarapanch, being head of the Gram Panchayat, is supposed to read and write Odia. When the statute provides criteria for disqualification, it is for the person asserting that he knows to read and write Odia to prove with cogent material. On analysis of evidence when the learned trial Court returned finding that the appellant does not know to read and write Odia, and such evidence on reappreciation being confirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court does not find any incongruity in the decision of the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. This Court finds the judgment of the learned Single Judge reasonable having no flaw in arriving at apt conclusion in absence of demonstration of contrary material to take a view other than the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Senior Counsel has not adduced any fresh material to indicate that the evidence on record was ignored from consideration. The fact established based on evidence (oral and documentary) that the appellant is not able to read and write Odia cannot manifestly be stated to be erroneous. Therefore, this Court is left with no scope than to take a different view that is taken by the learned Single Bench. Finding no infirmity nor perversity or irregularity in the judgment of the learned Single Bench, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 9. In view of the above, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and Interlocutory Application(s), pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.