Orissa High Court
Durga Prasad Mohanty vs State Election Commission on 8 October, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.20381, 20292 & 20296 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Durga Prasad Mohanty .... Petitioner
-versus-
State Election Commission,
Odisha, BBSR & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. G. Agarwal, Advocate
(In W.P.(C) No.20381 of 2024
Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate
(In W.P.(C) Nos.20292 & Mr.
P.K. Parhi, Advocate (in
W.P.(C) No. 20296 of 2024)
For Opp. Parties : Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocate for
State Election Commission
(in all the Writ Petitions)
Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate for
private opp. Parties (in W.P.(C) No.20381 and
20292 of 2024).
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:01.10.2024 & Date of Judgment:08.10.2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// 2 //
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Since the issue involved in all the 3(three) Writ Petitions are similar and challenge has been made to the notification dated 12.08.2024, so issued by the State Election Commission, Odisha (in short "the Commission") to fill up the casual vacancies occurred in the office of Chairman/Vice-Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kalahandi and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti in the district of Ganjam, all were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20381 of 2024 is the Acting Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti. Similarly, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2024 is the Samiti Member of Gurunthi Grama Panchayat under Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti and petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20296 of 2024 are the Samiti Member of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti.
Page 2 of 24
// 3 //
3. It is the case of the petitioners in all these 3 (three) Writ Petitions that pursuant to the last Grama Panchayat Election held in the year 2021, petitioners were elected as Samiti Members of Narla Panchayat Samiti and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti. As per the provisions contained under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (in short Act), one Kamakhya Prasad Patra was elected as Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti in the Election held on 12.03.2022. But the said Kamakhya Prasad Patra died on 08.06.2024 and thereby causing a casual vacancy as against the post of Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti.
3.1. Similarly, in the last Grama Panchayat Election held in the year 2021, one Manorama Mohanty was elected as the Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti. But the said Manorama Mohanty when was elected as MLA of Narla Assembly Constituency in the last assembly election held in the month of June, 2024, she submitted her resignation from the post of Chairman of Page 3 of 24 // 4 // Narla Panchayat Samiti on 10.06.2024 and thereby causing vacancy as against the post of Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti.
3.2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the provisions contained under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Election Rules, 1991 (in short "the Rules") more particularly Rule-46 of the Rules, contended that casual vacancy in case of vacancy occurring on account of removal, resignation, death or otherwise of an elected member, Chairman or Vice- Chairman of the Samiti, the Block Development Officer shall forthwith report the fact to the Commissioner through the Collector of the District, who shall fix a date as soon as convenient for holding a by-election to fill up the vacancy.
3.3. It is contended that due to the death of the Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti in the district of Ganjam and election of the Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti and the resignation from the Page 4 of 24 // 5 // post of Chairman, matter was referred to the respective Collectors of the district by the concerned BDO. 3.4. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, it is contended that since in respect of Narla Panchayat Samiti the elected Chairman submitted her resignation due to her election as a member of the Legislative Assembly and in respect of the Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti, the elected Chairman died and thereby causing a casual vacancy as against the post of Chairman as well as Samiti Member, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, the Commission should have taken steps to fill up the casual vacancies not only against the post of Samiti Member but also as against the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. 3.5. But on the face of the clear provisions contained under Rule 46 of the Rules, the Commission when issued the impugned notification on 12.08.2024 to fill up the casual vacancy of Chairman only in respect of Narla Panchayat Samiti and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Page 5 of 24 // 6 // Samiti, action of the Commission in issuing such a notification is under challenge in the aforesaid 3 (three) Writ Petitions.
3.6. It is contended that in W.P.(C) No.20381 of 2024, this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 21.08.2024, passed an interim order restraining the Commission to hold the election of the Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti. This Court in W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2024, passed a similar order on dated 21.08.2024, restraining the Commission to hold the election of the Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti. It is contended that by virtue of the interim order, so passed on 21.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.20381 & 20292 of 2024, election to the post of Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti was not conducted in terms of the impugned Notification issued on 12.08.2024.
4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2024 and Mr. G. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Page 6 of 24 // 7 // W.P.(C) No.20381 of 2024 along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No.20296 of 2024, vehemently contended that in view of the clear provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, the Commission should have taken step to fill up both the post of Samiti Member along with the post of Chairman, which fell vacant due to the death of the Chairman in the case of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti and due to the resignation of the Chairman in respect of Narla Panchayat Samiti. But the Commission only issued the impugned notification on 12.08.2024 to fill up the vacancy as against the post of Chairman of both the Panchayat Samiti. Being aggrieved by such action of the Commission, all the 3 (three) Writ Petitions have been filed.
4.1. It is also contended that as per the provisions contained under Rule-46(3) of the Rules, the provisions contained under part-2 to 6 of the Rules shall apply mutandis to such by-elections. As provided under the proviso to Rule-46(3) of the Rules, in case of by-election Page 7 of 24 // 8 // to the office of an elected member, the Electoral Role utilized at the time of election to such office shall be utilized and unless the Commission otherwise directs it shall not be necessary either to publish the electoral roll or to invite objection. Rule-46 of the 1991 Rules in its entirety reads as follows:
"Filling up of the casual vacancies-(1) Casual vacancy-In the case of a vacancy occurring on account of removal, resignation, death or otherwise of an elected member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Samiti, the Block Development Officere shall forthwith report the fact to the Commissioner through the Collector of the district who shall fix a date as soon as convenient for holding a bye-election to fill up the vacancy.
Provided that in case of bye-election to the office of an elected member, the electoral roll utilised at the time of election to such office shall be utilised and unless the Commissioner otherwise directs it shall not be necessary either to publish the electoral roll or to invite objections.
Provided further that the Commissioner may, if the circumstances so warrant, fix up different dates for different stages of election proceedings to fill up casual vacancies."
4.2. It is accordingly contended that since the post of Chairman of both the Panchayat Samiti along with the post of Samiti Member fell vacant due to the death and resignation in both the cases, the Commission instead of going for the election as against the post of Chairman by publishing the impugned Notification Page 8 of 24 // 9 // dated 12.08.2024, should have taken step to fill up the post of Samiti Member as well as post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti simultaneously. 4.3. It is also contended that taking into account the clear provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, this Court not only passed the impugned order on 21.08.2024 but also in the meantime the schedule of election provided in the impugned notification has lost its force. The Commission in view of such lapse of the schedule is also required to issue a fresh notification by prescribing the schedule of Election once again. Therefore, there will be no impediment on the part of the Commission to fill up the vacancy of Samiti Member as well as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti simultaneously with issuance of fresh notifications in that regard.
4.4. It is also contended that since the post of Member in both the Samiti fell vacant due to the death of Member/Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti and Resignation of the Member/Chairman of Narla Page 9 of 24 // 10 // Panchayat Samiti, unless the post of member is filled up by way of a bye-election, the said member will be deprived to participate in the Election to be held for the post of Chairman.
4.5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned notification dated 12.08.2024, so issued by the Commission requires interference of this Court with passing of appropriate order.
5. Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed in both the Writ Petitions. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Commission that in view of the provisions contained under Section-44-A of the Act, the Notification issued by the Commission on 12.08.2024 can only be challenged by way of filing election-petition and not by filing of writ petition under Article-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 44-A of the Act reads as follows:
Page 10 of 24
// 11 // "44-A. Election petitions- No election of a person as a member of Samiti held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
5.1. It is also contended that in view of the provisions contained under Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India, since the process of election to fill up the casual vacancy against the post of Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti was set in motion with issuance of the Notification dated 12.08.2024, the same is not liable for interference by Courts in exercise of the power under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Article-243(O) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-
"Article 243(O) {Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters} Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -
a. the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court;
b. no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."
5.2. In support of his submission, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Commission relied on a decision of the Page 11 of 24 // 12 // Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1595 in the case of Boddula Krishnaiah & Anr vs State Election Commissioner, A.P. & Ors. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-7 to 11 of the said decision has held as follows:-
"7. Article 243(o) of the Constitution envisages bar on interference by courts in election matters. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, under sub-clause (b) "no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State'. Thus there is a constitutional bar on interference with the election process except by an election petition, presented to an Election Tribunal as may be made by or under law by the competent legislature and in the manner provided thereunder, Power of the court granting stay of the election process is no longer res integra
8. In N.P. Punnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952 SCR 218] a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election"; and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress.Page 12 of 24
// 13 //
9. The same principle was laid down in Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors. etc. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman & Ors. etc.[(1985) Supp. 1 SCR 493] : (AIR1985 SC 1233) . In this case where the election process was set in motion the High Court granted ad-interim injunction of the further proceedings of the election to the State Legislature. A Constitution Bench of this Court had held thus:
"The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition and in issuing a Rule Nisi upon it, since the petition questioned the vires of the laws of election. But it was not justified in passing the interim orders dated February 12, and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders by its judgment dated February 25, 1982. Firstly, the High Court had no material before it to warrant the passing of those orders. The allegations in the Writ Petition are of a vague and general nature on the basis of which no relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High Court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no high Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked.
The High Courts must observe a self-
imposed limitation on their power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or given directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic foundation and functioning of our Constitution. That limitation ought to be observed irrespective of the fact whether the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are a part of the process of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329 [b] of the Constitution "
At page 497 it was further held that:
"Even assuming, that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a part of the process of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329 [b], the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it not only assumed control over the election process but, as a result of which, the Section to the Legislative Page 13 of 24 // 14 // Assembly stood the risk of being postponed indefinitely."
10. The same principle was reiterated when the election to the Gram Panchayat was sought to be stalled in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pradhan, Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors. [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 305 at 331]. The Court observed thus:
"What is more objectionable in the approach of the High is that although clause [a] of Article 243 [O] of the constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [(1967) 1 SCR 400 : AIR 1967 SC 669]. In that case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This Court held that the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good reason for such a provision because if the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Although an order under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and that same position as a law made by Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article
327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-0 in place of Article 327 and Sections 2 [kk], II-F published under Section 10 [4] of Act puts such an order in the and 12-BB of the Act in place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court could have Page 14 of 24 // 15 // entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation no objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the notification for holding the elections was issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge was made after the notification for the election was issued on 31-8-1994."
11. Thus, it would be clear that once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process giving direction to the election officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process afresh in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented to exercise their franchise. As seen, that dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy is thus available at law for redressal."
5.3. It is also contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5872 of 2020. This Court in the said decision has held has follows:-
"It is seen that nowhere it has been provided that in case of vacancies appearing for the Member as well as President of the Zilla Parishad, the by-election in respect of Member is to be held first and after filing up of that casual vacancy, the process for filing up the casual vacancy for the President of Zilla Parishad is to be held so as to say that the State Election Commission is under the legal obligation to act accordingly for holding the elections."
5.4. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court reported in 2016 Suppl.-I, OLR -97. This Court in Para-14 of the judgment has held as follows:-
"14. True, the Commissioner of the Corporation sent intimation to the State Election Commissioner under Rule-Page 15 of 24
// 16 // 90 of the Rules, about occurrence of the casual vacancy in the office of the Corporation in Ward No.21 with a request to take steps to hold bye-election to fill up such vacancy. There is no mandate of law that such bye- election to fill up the casual vacancy in the office of the Corporator must be filled up before election to the office of the mayor is held."
5.5. Similarly, reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court passed on 05.09.2003 in W.P.(C) No.5908 of 2003. This Court in the said decision has held as follows:-
""The petitioner is yet to get elected as Member of the Samiti and thus, has no right presently either to elect a Chairman of a Samiti or to contest in an election for Chairman of the samiti and the mere expectation of the petitioner that in the election that may be held for the vacancy in the office of the Member of the Samiti he may be elected cannot confer any locus standi on the petitioner to move this Court to stall the election to the office of the Chairman of the Samiti. On this ground alone, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition with the election to the office of Chairman, K. Nuagaon Panchayat Samiti."
5.6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Commission placing reliance on the provisions contained under Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India and the decisions cited supra, contended that since the process of election to fill up the casual vacancy of Narla Panchayat Samity and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samity has already been set in motion with issuance of the Notification dated 12.08.2024 under Annexure-6, Page 16 of 24 // 17 // no interference can be made by this Court with regard to the said process of election notified on 12.08.2024. Not only that it is also contended that the only scope available to the petitioners is to file Election Petition as provided under Section-44-A of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. It is accordingly contended that all the three writ petitions are not entertainable and liable for dismissal.
6. To the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission, learned counsels for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions contained under Section-44-L of the Act, since the election has not yet been held in terms of the Notification issued on 12.08.2024, no Election Petition is maintainable to declare the election as void. It also contended that since on the face of the interim order passed by this Court on 21.08.2024, election in terms of the impugned Notification dated 12.08.2024 has not been held and the schedule of election has lapsed, there is no impediment on the part of the Commission Page 17 of 24 // 18 // to go for the election to fill up the vacant post of Samiti Member along with the Election of the Chairman of the concerned Panchayat Samiti.
6.1. It is further contended that while election of Samiti Member is by virtue of direct election, election of Chairman is by way of indirect election and election of Chairman can only be made from amongst elected Samiti Members of the Panchayat Samiti. 6.2. It is accordingly contended that in view of the fact that the schedule of election so issued in the impugned Notification dated 12.08.2024 since has lapsed in the meantime, the Commission can go for election of Samiti Member as well as the Chairman by fixing the dates suitably and thereby enabling the Samiti Members of the Panchayat Samiti, which has fallen vacant due to the death and resignation respectively, can participate in the election to be held for the post of Chairman.
7. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Opp. Parties in both the Writ Petitions on the other hand contended that in view of Page 18 of 24 // 19 // the provisions contained under Section 44-A of the Act r/w Section-44-L(e), an election petition is very well maintainable against the Notification issued by the Commission on 12.08.2024. It is also contended that if it is the case of the petitioners that provisions contained under Rule-46 has not been followed, an Election Petition is very well maintainable under Section-44-L(e) of the Act.
7.1. It is also contended that as provided under Rule- 51 of the Rules, any dispute arising out of any of the provisions of these rules except those contained in part-II-A and Rule-47, 48 & 49 shall be deemed to be an election dispute under the Act and shall be decided by such authority and in such manner as provided in the Act. Since the petitioners claim non-compliance of Rule-46 of the Rules, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-51 read with Section-44-A r/w Section-44-L(e) of the Act, petitioners should have raised an election dispute instead of approaching this Court challenging the Notification dated 12.08.2024. Page 19 of 24
// 20 // Learned Senior Counsel also supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Commission with regard to the bar in entertaining such Writ Petitions in view of the provisions contained under Article-243(O) of the Constitution of India.
8. I have heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.20292, Mr. G. Agrawal, learned counsel in W.P.(C) No.20381 of 2024, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel in W.P.(C) No.20296 of 2024 along with Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission in all the 3 (three) cases and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Opp. Parties. On the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties and with due exchange of the pleadings, all the matters were heard at the stage of Admission and disposed of by the present common order.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made and the materials Page 20 of 24 // 21 // placed before this Court, it is found that post of Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kalahandi fell vacant due to the resignation of the Chairman on her election as a member of the State Legislative Assembly. The Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti was elected as Samiti member of Karmegaon Grama Panchayat and she was elected as Chairman subsequently. Similarly, the Chairman of Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti was earlier elected as Samiti Savya of Dengapadar Grama Panchayat. 9.1. As provided under Rule-46 of the 1991 Rules, casual vacancy in case of vacancy occurring on account of removal, resignation, death or otherwise of an elected member, Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Samiti was required to be reported to the Commission by the BDO though the Collector of the district and the Commission shall fix a date as soon as convenient for holding a bye-election to fill up the vacancy. It is not disputed by either of the parties that post of Chairman of Narla Panchayat Samiti and Kukudakhandi Page 21 of 24 // 22 // Panchayat Samiti fell vacant due to the resignation and death of the concerned Chairman. Both the Chairman of the 2 (two) Panchayat Samiti were elected as Samiti Member of Karmegaon Grama Panchayat under Narla Panchayat Samiti and Dengapadar Grama Panchayat under Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti. 9.2. In view of the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, the Commission was required to take steps to fill up the vacancy to the posts of Samiti Member as well as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. But as found from the record, the impugned Notification dated 12.08.2024 was issued by the Commission only to fill up the casual vacancy to the post of Chairman of Narla and Kukudakhandi Panchayat Samiti.
9.3. In view of the clear provision contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, the Commission should have taken steps to fill up the vacancy arising out of death/resignation of the Samiti Member and consequential vacancy to the post of Chairman. But as Page 22 of 24 // 23 // found from the record, the impugned Notification was only issued to fill up the casual vacancy as against the post of Chairman.
9.4. It is also found that because of the interim order passed on 21.08.2024 in both the cases, the election in terms of the impugned Notification dated 12.08.2024 could not be held and the schedule of election indicated in the impugned notification has already lapsed. 9.5. It is also the view of this Court that in view of the provisions contained under Article-243(O) of the Constitution of India read with Section-44-A and Section-44-L(e) of the Act and Rule-51 of the Rules and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Commission, the recourse open to the petitioners was to file an election dispute challenging the Notification dated 12.08.2024.
9.6. But since in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 21.08.2024, the schedule of election prescribed in the Notification dated 12.08.2024 has lapsed and in order to conduct the election, a fresh Page 23 of 24 // 24 // Notification is required to be issued by the Commission by prescribing the schedule of election once again, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, this Court while disposing all the 3(three) Writ Petitions, direct the Commission to take step to fill up the vacancy arising out of the resignation and death of the Samiti Members of both the Panchayat Samiti in question as well as the casual vacancy to the post of Chairman.
9.7. This Court accordingly directs the Commission to issue 2 (two) separate notifications in such a manner that the Samiti Member to be elected to fill up the vacancy can participate in the election to the post of Chairman. This Court directs the Commission to take immediate step in the matter as directed.
10. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th October, 2024/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Page 24 of 24 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 12:32:46