Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

I.M. Quddusi, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

N. Prusty, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. I agree.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536779',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p style="text-align: justify;">N. Prusty, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536779',
		(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Maina Tandia Vs Election Officer Cum B D O and ors - Citation 536779 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536779',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Maina Tandia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Maina Tandia Vs. Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Election - Filing of Petition - Condonation of Delay - Election for post of Sarpanch held - Respondent elected as Sarpanch - Election of Respondent challenged by petitioner by filing election petition alongwith application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner allowed ex parte and matter decided in petitioner's favour wherein election of Respondent as Sarpanch declared illegal and fresh election directed - Being aggrieved, election appeal filed by Respondent - Allowed - Hence, present petition by petitioner - Held, from facts it established that application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent and that too without a speaking order - In election petition delay of more than six months of time limit prescribed by Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner - Parties should have given opportunity of hearing and application should have been decided by reasoned order - Thus, orders passed by Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge set aside - However, as new election has already been held during pendency of writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter - Petition allowed in part - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.M. Quddusi and; N. Prusty, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.</p><p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:</p><p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?</p><p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?</p><p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?</p><p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?</p><p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?</p><p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.</p><p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:</p><p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.</p><p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.</p><p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.</p><p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.</p><p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:</p><p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.</p><p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:</p><p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.</p><p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:</p><p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.</p><p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.</p><p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.</p><p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs</p><p>N. Prusty, J.</p><p>10. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT407; 2008(I)OLR364',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Election Officer-cum-b.D.O. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536779',
	(int) 1 => 'maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536779/maina-tandia-vs-election-officer'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.M. Quddusi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner had filed Election Petition registered as M.J.C. No. 9 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal in the district of Boudh under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act read with the latest amendment to cancel the nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkatia Gram Panchayat and to declare the acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 as illegal, improper, invalid and void and to give a direction to hold fresh election for the post of Sarpanch, Khatkatia Gram Panchayat which was allowed and acceptance of nomination paper of opposite party No. 2 Alladin Mahalik and declaring her as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was declared as illegal and she was declared disqualified to be elected as Sarpanch vide judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 against which opposite party no. 2 Smt. Alladin Mahalik had filed an election appeal which was registered as Election Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Boudh which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh vide order dated 31.3.2005 setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of Sarpanch, Khatkhatia Gram Panchayat in the district of Boudh was reserved for Scheduled Caste female candidate. Opposite party No. 2 who allegedly belonged to Scheduled Caste filed nomination paper as a candidate in the said election. In fact, there were six candidates in the fray but four had withdrawn their nomination papers and, as such, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 remained in the field. She was declared as elected and, as such, election petition was filed, as mentioned above.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. Whether the Election dispute is maintainable?',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Whether the petitioner has got cause of action to file the case?',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Whether the M.J.C. petition is barred by limitation?',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Whether the O.P. No. 2, Alladin Mahalik belongs to S.C. at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Khatkhatia G.P. and her declaration as Sarpanch is void?',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Whether the nomination of Alladin Mahalik was accepted properly and was qualified to contest the election?',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. It appears that the election petition was filed on 6.11.2002, which should have been filed within fifteen days from the declaration of the result of the election of Sarpanch which was declared on 28.2.2002. The petitioner had taken the plea that a writ petition was filed in this Court and thereafter she became ill. In the above regard, it has to be mentioned that Writ Petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 2489 of 2002 was filed in this Court against the acceptance of nomination paper by the Election Officer at that stage before declaration of result on 26.2.2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2002 with the observation that since the election was already over the only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise an election dispute as provided under the relevant statute. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that the election dispute would be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court made it clear that since the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, if election petition was filed before the summer vacation, the designated authority/Court would take notice about the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and pass appropriate orders.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay on 6.11.2002. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same are liable to be perused which are reproduced below:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. That the election result to the post of Sarpanch Khatkhatia G.P. was declared on 28.2.2002 and as such the election petition which should have been filed within fifteen days could not be filed as the O.J.C. No. 2489 of 2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. although the petitioner was obliged to file the petition before the summer vacation yet it could not be done as the petition was ill from 25.4.2002 to 5.11.2002.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. That after getting cured from the ailment the petitioner has filed the petitioner today, the 6th day of November, 2002.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. That the delay thus caused in filing the election dispute was beyond the control of the petitioner.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>In reply to the delay part, opposite party No. 2 while showing cause raised objection in paragraph-7 which is also reproduced as under:',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. That in reply to the contents of paras 7, 8 and 9, the O.P. No. 2 begs to say that the petition is not filed by the petitioner immediately after the disposal of the O.J.C. in the Hon'ble High Court and after the disposal of the said O.J.C. also there is a delay of more than six month in filing the petition. So, the delay should not have been condoned and the petition should have been rejected.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>It is to be noticed that the learned Trial Judge framed issue No. 3 as mentioned above regarding the delay and decided the same as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>The O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that the M.J.C. is barred by limitation. Although Section 31 of O.G.P. Act provides that the Election petition should be filed within 15 days of publication of the name of elected candidates in the Notice Board, but in this case, after the publication of election result, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner should have filed the petition in this case before commencement of Summer Vacation. But as the petitioner was ill, so she filed this petition on 6.11.2002 along with the petition to condone the delay. So, the MJC petition has been accepted after condonation of delay which is not barred by limitation, as such the suit is maintainable. So, this issue is answered accordingly.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. Perusal of the above quoted finding on issue No. 3 would show that the learned trial Judge allowed the application for condonation of delay but the same was allowed before issuing notice to the other side on the condonation of delay as well as election petition. In the election petition, the delay could not have been condoned without first providing opportunity to raise objection by the other side. The learned trial Judge did not care to issue notice and condoned the delay ex parte even before the stage of issuing notice to the opposite party of the election petition, i.e., opposite party No. 2 of the instant writ petition. The delay condonation petition was allowed on 25.2.2003 ex parte. The order allowing the application for condonation of delay is quoted as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Advocate for the petitioner is present. Office objection No. 6 is complied. Heard the petition through his advocate in the matter of limitation. Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the election petition under Section 30 and 31 of OGP Act is in order and the same is admitted, Office to check and issue notice to all the OPs fixing the case to 12.3.2003 for S/R and counter.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>7. Therefore, it is a fact that the application for condonation of delay was decided ex parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side and that too without a speaking order. In an election petition delay of more than six months of the time limit prescribed by the Statute was not liable to be condoned in this manner. The parties should have been given an opportunity of hearing and the application should have been decided by a reasoned order. It is noticed that while deciding issue No. 3, the learned trial Judge had made an observation that the petitioner was ill but no such observation was made while accepting the application for condonation of delay, more particularly when the order condoning the delay was passed ex parte without any notice to the other side.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>8. The above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Judge. Hence, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court in the election petition, we would have remitted the matter to the learned trial Court to decide first the delay condonation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but as a new election has already been held during the pendency of this writ petition no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>9. Therefore, at this stage, we allow this writ petition in part and quash the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. No order as to costs',
	(int) 24 => '<p>N. Prusty, J.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>10. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 26 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109