Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors.

Decided On : Dec-16-2009

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 31',
			(int) 1 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 11',
			(int) 3 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat',
			(int) 3 => 'Election Misc',
			(int) 4 => 'Gram Panchayat',
			(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 6 => 'a Gram Sashan',
			(int) 7 => 'Misc',
			(int) 8 => 'Grama Sashan',
			(int) 9 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24.7.2008',
			(int) 1 => '10.5.2007',
			(int) 2 => '10.3.2007',
			(int) 3 => '2007',
			(int) 4 => '1000/-'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Judge',
			(int) 1 => 'Dhenkanal',
			(int) 2 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 3 => 'Jr. Division',
			(int) 4 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 6 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 12 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Election Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'District Judge',
			(int) 16 => 'Dhenkanal',
			(int) 17 => 'the Election Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 19 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 20 => 'the Election Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Ext',
			(int) 24 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 25 => 'Naib',
			(int) 26 => 'Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'regard.8',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 35 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 36 => 'Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25',
			(int) 1 => '2007.2',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '24.3.2007',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '25',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => 'five',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '14',
			(int) 15 => '25',
			(int) 16 => 'six',
			(int) 17 => 'only three',
			(int) 18 => 'five',
			(int) 19 => 'one',
			(int) 20 => '1',
			(int) 21 => '1'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the District Judge',
			(int) 1 => 'the District Judge'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'appeal.6',
			(int) 1 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 2 => 'Oriya'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536315',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Meena Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-12-16',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007, wherein it dismissed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-against the petitioner and confirmed the judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner and opp. party No. 1 contested for the office of Naib Sarpanch of Kalanga Gram Panchayat. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes was declared elected on 10.3.2007. On 24.3.2007 opp. party No. 1 filed Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 under Section 31 of the Gram Panchayat Act before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal to declare the election of the present petitioner as null and void and to declare her to have been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. The main ground of challenge was that the returned candidate opp. party No. 1 did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such she was not qualified for becoming a member of Gram Panchayat as provided under Clause (II) Sub-clause B of Section 11 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P. Act'.) The present petitioner filed show cause denying the allegations made by opp. party No. 1 in her election petition. She specifically stated that she knew reading and writing Oriya. In order to substantiate her case the election petitioner (present opp. party No. 1) examined two witnesses including herself. The opp. party (present petitioner) did not prefer to examine any witness. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issued including the issue:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whether opposite party No. 1 had no eligibility as she does not know reading and writing Oriya on the date of her Election as Naib Sarpanch? Does this criteria disqualify her candidature?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The trial Court directed the present petitioner to read and write Oriya in open Court. From her reading and writing, the trial Court held that she did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such allowed the election petition and declared her election as void ab initio and further declared that the opposite party (election petitioner) had been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. Furthermore, it was ordered that the concerned authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opp. party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, opp. party No. 1 in the Election Tribunal preferred appeal before learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007 wherein it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved with the said confirming order of the District Judge, the appellant therein has preferred the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is found from the judgment passed by the Election tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya, albeit with much difficulty. As per Section 11(c)(ii) of the G.P. Act no member of a Gram Sashan would be eligible to stand for election if he is unable to read and write Oriya. In the present case, since it was the finding of the Election Tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya albeit with much difficulty, still then she could not be disqualified for contesting the election. So the Election Tribunal ought not to have allowed the election petition. The appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect and allowed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On perusal of the judgment passed in election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 it is found that the present petitioner was directed to read Ext.C-1, which is printed in Oriya. The caption of it consists of six words, out of which, she could read properly only three words. Similarly, she was asked to write five sentences in Oriya, but she could only write one sentence correctly. So it is clear that the petitioner cannot read and write Oriya to discharge the function of a member of Grama Sashan, let along a Naib Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As stated earlier, while dismissing the appeal the District Judge, Dhenkanal imposed cost of Rs. 1000/- against the appellant (the present petitioner). So far the order of the trial Court with regard to initiation of proceeding against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process is concerned, the judgment of the appellate Court is silent in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the order imposing cost by the appellate Court against the petitioner and the order of the trial Court that the authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim are set aside, but so far the declaration of the trial Court that the election of the present petitioner to the office of Naib Sarpanch was void and that the opposite party herein had been declared to be duly elected as Naib Sarpanch, Kalanga Gram Panchayat and confirmation of the said order by the appellate Court are confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the writ petitioner is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No Cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(I)OLR163',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Banita Samal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536315'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 31',
		(int) 1 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 11',
		(int) 3 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat',
		(int) 3 => 'Election Misc',
		(int) 4 => 'Gram Panchayat',
		(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 6 => 'a Gram Sashan',
		(int) 7 => 'Misc',
		(int) 8 => 'Grama Sashan',
		(int) 9 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24.7.2008',
		(int) 1 => '10.5.2007',
		(int) 2 => '10.3.2007',
		(int) 3 => '2007',
		(int) 4 => '1000/-'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Judge',
		(int) 1 => 'Dhenkanal',
		(int) 2 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 3 => 'Jr. Division',
		(int) 4 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 6 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 12 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Election Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'District Judge',
		(int) 16 => 'Dhenkanal',
		(int) 17 => 'the Election Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 19 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 20 => 'the Election Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Ext',
		(int) 24 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 25 => 'Naib',
		(int) 26 => 'Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'regard.8',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 35 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 36 => 'Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25',
		(int) 1 => '2007.2',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '24.3.2007',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '25',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => 'five',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '14',
		(int) 15 => '25',
		(int) 16 => 'six',
		(int) 17 => 'only three',
		(int) 18 => 'five',
		(int) 19 => 'one',
		(int) 20 => '1',
		(int) 21 => '1'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the District Judge',
		(int) 1 => 'the District Judge'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'appeal.6',
		(int) 1 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 2 => 'Oriya'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536315',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Meena Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-12-16',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007, wherein it dismissed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-against the petitioner and confirmed the judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner and opp. party No. 1 contested for the office of Naib Sarpanch of Kalanga Gram Panchayat. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes was declared elected on 10.3.2007. On 24.3.2007 opp. party No. 1 filed Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 under Section 31 of the Gram Panchayat Act before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal to declare the election of the present petitioner as null and void and to declare her to have been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. The main ground of challenge was that the returned candidate opp. party No. 1 did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such she was not qualified for becoming a member of Gram Panchayat as provided under Clause (II) Sub-clause B of Section 11 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P. Act'.) The present petitioner filed show cause denying the allegations made by opp. party No. 1 in her election petition. She specifically stated that she knew reading and writing Oriya. In order to substantiate her case the election petitioner (present opp. party No. 1) examined two witnesses including herself. The opp. party (present petitioner) did not prefer to examine any witness. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issued including the issue:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whether opposite party No. 1 had no eligibility as she does not know reading and writing Oriya on the date of her Election as Naib Sarpanch? Does this criteria disqualify her candidature?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The trial Court directed the present petitioner to read and write Oriya in open Court. From her reading and writing, the trial Court held that she did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such allowed the election petition and declared her election as void ab initio and further declared that the opposite party (election petitioner) had been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. Furthermore, it was ordered that the concerned authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opp. party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, opp. party No. 1 in the Election Tribunal preferred appeal before learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007 wherein it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved with the said confirming order of the District Judge, the appellant therein has preferred the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is found from the judgment passed by the Election tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya, albeit with much difficulty. As per Section 11(c)(ii) of the G.P. Act no member of a Gram Sashan would be eligible to stand for election if he is unable to read and write Oriya. In the present case, since it was the finding of the Election Tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya albeit with much difficulty, still then she could not be disqualified for contesting the election. So the Election Tribunal ought not to have allowed the election petition. The appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect and allowed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On perusal of the judgment passed in election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 it is found that the present petitioner was directed to read Ext.C-1, which is printed in Oriya. The caption of it consists of six words, out of which, she could read properly only three words. Similarly, she was asked to write five sentences in Oriya, but she could only write one sentence correctly. So it is clear that the petitioner cannot read and write Oriya to discharge the function of a member of Grama Sashan, let along a Naib Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As stated earlier, while dismissing the appeal the District Judge, Dhenkanal imposed cost of Rs. 1000/- against the appellant (the present petitioner). So far the order of the trial Court with regard to initiation of proceeding against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process is concerned, the judgment of the appellate Court is silent in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the order imposing cost by the appellate Court against the petitioner and the order of the trial Court that the authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim are set aside, but so far the declaration of the trial Court that the election of the present petitioner to the office of Naib Sarpanch was void and that the opposite party herein had been declared to be duly elected as Naib Sarpanch, Kalanga Gram Panchayat and confirmation of the said order by the appellate Court are confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the writ petitioner is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No Cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(I)OLR163',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Banita Samal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536315'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
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

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 31',
			(int) 1 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 11',
			(int) 3 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat',
			(int) 3 => 'Election Misc',
			(int) 4 => 'Gram Panchayat',
			(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 6 => 'a Gram Sashan',
			(int) 7 => 'Misc',
			(int) 8 => 'Grama Sashan',
			(int) 9 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24.7.2008',
			(int) 1 => '10.5.2007',
			(int) 2 => '10.3.2007',
			(int) 3 => '2007',
			(int) 4 => '1000/-'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Judge',
			(int) 1 => 'Dhenkanal',
			(int) 2 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 3 => 'Jr. Division',
			(int) 4 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 6 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 12 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Election Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'District Judge',
			(int) 16 => 'Dhenkanal',
			(int) 17 => 'the Election Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 19 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 20 => 'the Election Tribunal',
			(int) 21 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Ext',
			(int) 24 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 25 => 'Naib',
			(int) 26 => 'Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'regard.8',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 35 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
			(int) 36 => 'Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25',
			(int) 1 => '2007.2',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '24.3.2007',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '25',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => 'five',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => '1',
			(int) 13 => '1',
			(int) 14 => '14',
			(int) 15 => '25',
			(int) 16 => 'six',
			(int) 17 => 'only three',
			(int) 18 => 'five',
			(int) 19 => 'one',
			(int) 20 => '1',
			(int) 21 => '1'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the District Judge',
			(int) 1 => 'the District Judge'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'appeal.6',
			(int) 1 => 'Oriya',
			(int) 2 => 'Oriya'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536315',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Meena Sahoo',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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. 
',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-12-16',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007, wherein it dismissed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-against the petitioner and confirmed the judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner and opp. party No. 1 contested for the office of Naib Sarpanch of Kalanga Gram Panchayat. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes was declared elected on 10.3.2007. On 24.3.2007 opp. party No. 1 filed Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 under Section 31 of the Gram Panchayat Act before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal to declare the election of the present petitioner as null and void and to declare her to have been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. The main ground of challenge was that the returned candidate opp. party No. 1 did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such she was not qualified for becoming a member of Gram Panchayat as provided under Clause (II) Sub-clause B of Section 11 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P. Act'.) The present petitioner filed show cause denying the allegations made by opp. party No. 1 in her election petition. She specifically stated that she knew reading and writing Oriya. In order to substantiate her case the election petitioner (present opp. party No. 1) examined two witnesses including herself. The opp. party (present petitioner) did not prefer to examine any witness. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issued including the issue:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whether opposite party No. 1 had no eligibility as she does not know reading and writing Oriya on the date of her Election as Naib Sarpanch? Does this criteria disqualify her candidature?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The trial Court directed the present petitioner to read and write Oriya in open Court. From her reading and writing, the trial Court held that she did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such allowed the election petition and declared her election as void ab initio and further declared that the opposite party (election petitioner) had been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. Furthermore, it was ordered that the concerned authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opp. party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, opp. party No. 1 in the Election Tribunal preferred appeal before learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007 wherein it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved with the said confirming order of the District Judge, the appellant therein has preferred the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is found from the judgment passed by the Election tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya, albeit with much difficulty. As per Section 11(c)(ii) of the G.P. Act no member of a Gram Sashan would be eligible to stand for election if he is unable to read and write Oriya. In the present case, since it was the finding of the Election Tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya albeit with much difficulty, still then she could not be disqualified for contesting the election. So the Election Tribunal ought not to have allowed the election petition. The appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect and allowed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On perusal of the judgment passed in election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 it is found that the present petitioner was directed to read Ext.C-1, which is printed in Oriya. The caption of it consists of six words, out of which, she could read properly only three words. Similarly, she was asked to write five sentences in Oriya, but she could only write one sentence correctly. So it is clear that the petitioner cannot read and write Oriya to discharge the function of a member of Grama Sashan, let along a Naib Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As stated earlier, while dismissing the appeal the District Judge, Dhenkanal imposed cost of Rs. 1000/- against the appellant (the present petitioner). So far the order of the trial Court with regard to initiation of proceeding against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process is concerned, the judgment of the appellate Court is silent in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the order imposing cost by the appellate Court against the petitioner and the order of the trial Court that the authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim are set aside, but so far the declaration of the trial Court that the election of the present petitioner to the office of Naib Sarpanch was void and that the opposite party herein had been declared to be duly elected as Naib Sarpanch, Kalanga Gram Panchayat and confirmation of the said order by the appellate Court are confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the writ petitioner is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No Cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(I)OLR163',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Banita Samal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536315'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 31',
		(int) 1 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 11',
		(int) 3 => 'the Gram Panchayat Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.N. Biswal',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat',
		(int) 3 => 'Election Misc',
		(int) 4 => 'Gram Panchayat',
		(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 6 => 'a Gram Sashan',
		(int) 7 => 'Misc',
		(int) 8 => 'Grama Sashan',
		(int) 9 => 'Kalanga Gram Panchayat'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24.7.2008',
		(int) 1 => '10.5.2007',
		(int) 2 => '10.3.2007',
		(int) 3 => '2007',
		(int) 4 => '1000/-'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Judge',
		(int) 1 => 'Dhenkanal',
		(int) 2 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 3 => 'Jr. Division',
		(int) 4 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 5 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 6 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 12 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Election Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'District Judge',
		(int) 16 => 'Dhenkanal',
		(int) 17 => 'the Election Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 19 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 20 => 'the Election Tribunal',
		(int) 21 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Ext',
		(int) 24 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 25 => 'Naib',
		(int) 26 => 'Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'regard.8',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 35 => 'Naib Sarpanch',
		(int) 36 => 'Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25',
		(int) 1 => '2007.2',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '24.3.2007',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '25',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => 'five',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => '1',
		(int) 13 => '1',
		(int) 14 => '14',
		(int) 15 => '25',
		(int) 16 => 'six',
		(int) 17 => 'only three',
		(int) 18 => 'five',
		(int) 19 => 'one',
		(int) 20 => '1',
		(int) 21 => '1'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the District Judge',
		(int) 1 => 'the District Judge'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'appeal.6',
		(int) 1 => 'Oriya',
		(int) 2 => 'Oriya'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536315',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Meena Sahoo',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Meena Sahoo Vs. Banita Samal and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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. 
',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-12-16',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.N. Biswal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.N. Biswal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007, wherein it dismissed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-against the petitioner and confirmed the judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner and opp. party No. 1 contested for the office of Naib Sarpanch of Kalanga Gram Panchayat. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes was declared elected on 10.3.2007. On 24.3.2007 opp. party No. 1 filed Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 under Section 31 of the Gram Panchayat Act before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal to declare the election of the present petitioner as null and void and to declare her to have been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. The main ground of challenge was that the returned candidate opp. party No. 1 did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such she was not qualified for becoming a member of Gram Panchayat as provided under Clause (II) Sub-clause B of Section 11 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'G.P. Act'.) The present petitioner filed show cause denying the allegations made by opp. party No. 1 in her election petition. She specifically stated that she knew reading and writing Oriya. In order to substantiate her case the election petitioner (present opp. party No. 1) examined two witnesses including herself. The opp. party (present petitioner) did not prefer to examine any witness. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issued including the issue:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whether opposite party No. 1 had no eligibility as she does not know reading and writing Oriya on the date of her Election as Naib Sarpanch? Does this criteria disqualify her candidature?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The trial Court directed the present petitioner to read and write Oriya in open Court. From her reading and writing, the trial Court held that she did not know reading and writing Oriya and as such allowed the election petition and declared her election as void ab initio and further declared that the opposite party (election petitioner) had been duly elected as Naib Sarpanch. Furthermore, it was ordered that the concerned authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opp. party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, opp. party No. 1 in the Election Tribunal preferred appeal before learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 14 of 2007 wherein it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Being aggrieved with the said confirming order of the District Judge, the appellant therein has preferred the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is found from the judgment passed by the Election tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya, albeit with much difficulty. As per Section 11(c)(ii) of the G.P. Act no member of a Gram Sashan would be eligible to stand for election if he is unable to read and write Oriya. In the present case, since it was the finding of the Election Tribunal that the petitioner could read and write Oriya albeit with much difficulty, still then she could not be disqualified for contesting the election. So the Election Tribunal ought not to have allowed the election petition. The appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect and allowed the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On perusal of the judgment passed in election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 it is found that the present petitioner was directed to read Ext.C-1, which is printed in Oriya. The caption of it consists of six words, out of which, she could read properly only three words. Similarly, she was asked to write five sentences in Oriya, but she could only write one sentence correctly. So it is clear that the petitioner cannot read and write Oriya to discharge the function of a member of Grama Sashan, let along a Naib Sarpanch.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As stated earlier, while dismissing the appeal the District Judge, Dhenkanal imposed cost of Rs. 1000/- against the appellant (the present petitioner). So far the order of the trial Court with regard to initiation of proceeding against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim, to maintain the sanctity of election process is concerned, the judgment of the appellate Court is silent in that regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the order imposing cost by the appellate Court against the petitioner and the order of the trial Court that the authorities were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the trial Court) for her false claim are set aside, but so far the declaration of the trial Court that the election of the present petitioner to the office of Naib Sarpanch was void and that the opposite party herein had been declared to be duly elected as Naib Sarpanch, Kalanga Gram Panchayat and confirmation of the said order by the appellate Court are confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the writ petitioner is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No Cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(I)OLR163',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Banita Samal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536315'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
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

LAW: Section 31, the Gram Panchayat Act, Section 11, the Gram Panchayat Act

PERSON: R.N. Biswal, Misc, Kalanga Gram Panchayat, Election Misc, Gram Panchayat, Oriya, a Gram Sashan, Misc, Grama Sashan, Kalanga Gram Panchayat

NORP: J.1

DATE: 24.7.2008, 10.5.2007, 10.3.2007, 2007, 1000/-

ORG: District Judge, Dhenkanal, Naib Sarpanch, Jr. Division, Naib Sarpanch, Oriya, Oriya, Court, Oriya, Court, Court, Oriya, Naib Sarpanch, Court, Election Tribunal, District Judge, Dhenkanal, the Election Tribunal, Oriya, Oriya, the Election Tribunal, Oriya, Court, Ext, Oriya, Naib, Court, Court, Court, regard.8, Court, Court, Court, Court, Naib Sarpanch, Naib Sarpanch, Court

CARDINAL: 25, 2007.2, 1, 24.3.2007, 1, 25, 1, 1, 1, two, five, 1, 1, 1, 14, 25, six, only three, five, one, 1, 1

LOC: the District Judge, the District Judge

GPE: appeal.6, Oriya, Oriya