The Supreme Courtroom has noticed that the place solely two candidates contested an election, setting apart the profitable candidate’s election doesn’t warrant a recent ballot; as an alternative, the runner-up needs to be declared elected.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta put aside the Odisha Excessive Courtroom’s resolution to direct a recent election, after the profitable candidate’s election as Panchayat Samiti Chairperson was declared null and void.
The dispute arose from the 2022 election to the submit of Chairperson of the Delang Panchayat Samiti in Odisha, the place the appellant and the respondent have been the one two contestants. The respondent was declared elected.
The appellant challenged the election below Part 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, alleging that the returned candidate stood disqualified for having a 3rd little one past the statutory deadline.
The Election Tribunal allowed the petition, holding that the disqualification was proved based mostly on uncontroverted proof. It declared the respondent’s election void and, invoking Part 44-J(2)(b) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, declared the appellant because the duly elected Chairperson, being the one different candidate within the fray.
Nevertheless, the Appellate Tribunal and subsequently the Excessive Courtroom upheld the disqualification however put aside the declaration in favour of the appellant, directing a recent election, prompting the Appellant-runner candidate to attraction to the Supreme Courtroom.
Setting apart the impugned resolution, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta emphasised that the Appellate Tribunal and Excessive Courtroom erred in directing the recent polls, given the truth that solely two candidates had filed nominations within the election.
Rejecting the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal and Excessive Courtroom, the bench noticed that giving a chance to different members to contest was legally untenable, because the election had already been carried out between particular candidates.
“The Election Appellate Tribunal fell into clear error in reversing the stated declaration on the premise that different members of the Delang Panchayat Samiti needs to be given a chance to contest for the submit of Chairman. The Excessive Courtroom too, erred in affirming the judgment of the Election Appellate Tribunal to that extent.”, the courtroom stated.
“…it might be famous that, for election to the submit of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, solely the appellant-election petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate had contested and therefore setting apart of the declaration issued by the Election Tribunal in favour of the appellant-election petitioner on the premise that a chance needs to be given to different members of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.”, the courtroom held.
Accordingly, the election tribunal’s resolution was restored, and the Appellant was declared elected as Chairperson.
The attraction was allowed.
Trigger Title: RAMADEBI RAUTRAY VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. (and linked case)
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 260
Click on right here to obtain judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv. Mr. Tushar Garg, AOR Ms. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Debabrata Sprint, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
