Page 1 of 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.30672 of 2026

(An application Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

CNR No.ODHC010735912026

Pankajini Sahu ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Odisha

and others ....... Opposite Parties

Advocate for the parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Trilochan Nanda,

Advocate

For Opposite Party

Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain,

Addl. Govt. Advocate

...................

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 23.09.2026

_____________________________________________________________

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. Impugned is the order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the

Collector & District Magistrate, Bolangir in G.P. Misc. Case No.01

of 2026 as at Annexure-1. Vide the said order, the Petitioner, an

elected Ward Member of Ward No.8 of Dunguripali Gram

Panchayat, was disqualified to hold the post of Ward Member

WP(C)/30672/2026

ODHC010735912026

2026:OHC:161

Page 2 of 14

U(elected Naib Sarapanch) on the ground that she has

begotten her 3rd child after the cut-off date.

2. Since the order dated 03.09.2026 in G.P. Misc. Case

No.01 of 2026 is challenged basically on the ground of violation of

principle of natural justice, on consent of the learned Counsel for

the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal

at the stage of admission, based on materials on record.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also

Mr. Swain, learned A.G.A, who represents the State-Opposite

Parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of

this Court to the entire order sheets in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of

2026 submits, the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the

present Opposite Party No.5, who made a complaint under Section

25(1)(v) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, shortly, ‘the OGP

Act’, making an allegation therein that the Petitioner has three

children namely, Anisha Sahu, Deepika Sahu and Khitesh Sahu,

whose date of births are 23.12.2016, 20.04.2020 and 04.04.2024

respectively. She, having more than two children, is disqualified to

be elected or to continue as a Member of the G.P.

4.1. He further submits, G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 was

initiated against the Petitioner under Section 26(2) of the OGP Act

Page 3 of 14

by the Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir. Vide order dated

13.08.2026, the proceeding in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 stood

adjourned to 03.09.2026 directing the Petitioner to file Objection

within seven (7) days. Accordingly, she filed her Objection on

20.08.2026. However, without affording any opportunity, on the

very day, i.e., on 03.09.2026, the impugned order was passed by

the Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir without hearing the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also giving opportunity to the

Petitioner to lead evidence to substantiate her stand in the

Objection. Merely, based on the documents submitted by the

present Opposite Party No.5 obtained under the RTI Act, 2005

from the PIO, ICDS Project, Saintala, so also report of the

Superintendent C.H.C, Saintala, wherein, admittedly, there is a

discrepancy with regard to the alleged 3

rd son’s name, which is

reflected in the internal page-2 of the impugned order, such illegal

order was passed.

4.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of

this Court to the para-5 of the Objection dated 20.08.2026 filed

before the Opposite Party No.2 in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 as

at Annexure-3, further submits, in view of the specific stand taken

by the Petitioner, she should have been given chance to adduce

her evidence, so also other witnesses, including five(5) ward

Page 4 of 14

members, who filed a joint petition on 03.09.2026 in G.P. Misc.

Case No.01 of 2026, certified copy of which has been annexed to

the writ petition as Annexure-4. Paragraph 5 of the said Objection

dated 20.08.2026, being relevant, are reproduced below:

“ 5. That, the truth of the matter is that the

husband of the answering opposite party No. 1 is

Sri Lochan Sahu who lives with his younger brother

Prasanta Sahu. Both the brothers live with their

parents. Prasanta Sahu got married on 13.3.203

and the name of his wife if Smt.Pinki. While she

was in extreme labour pain, she was taken to the

Community Health Centre at Saintala for delivery.

She was accompanied by her mother in law

Khitisuta Sahu and her own mother who are

illiterate persons. Since Lochan Sahu and the

answering opposite party No. 1 are prominent

persons in the locality, the staff nurse mistook

Smt.Pinki to be the wife of Lochan Sahu and

accordingly made entries in the records. The

woman Smt.Pinki herself was in extreme labour

pain and she was not in a position to tell her own

name or the name of her husband. In such

confused situation, due to mistake and

inadvertence by staff nurse, it was wrongly written

in the Community Health Centre records that the

opposite party No.l gave birth to a male child. But

in fact it was Smt. Pinki who gave birth to a male

child on 04.04.2024 at CHC, Saintala and the said

child is the off-spring of Prashanta Sahu and not

Lochan Sahu. The mistake committed by a staff

nurse cannot make the present opposite party No. 1

as the biological mother of the male child bom on

4.4.2024, nor can it be a basis for disqualifying the

opposite party No. 1 from her elected post.”

4.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, apart from

such stand on merit, issue regarding maintainability of the said

Page 5 of 14

proceeding was also raised before the Collector and District

Magistrate, Balangir. But it was overlooked, while passing the

impugned order.

5. To substantiate his submission, so also the grounds

urged in the writ petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies

upon the judgments of this Court in Banamali Panda Vs. State

of Orissa and others , reported in 2004 (II) OLR 515, Sri

Gouranga Chandra Padhi Vs. State of Orissa and others ,

reported in 2005 (Supp.) OLR 948, Smt. Pabani Gajendra Vs.

State of Orissa and others , reported in 2005 (II) OLR 686,

Muktamanjari Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and others , reported

in 2010 (II) OLR 473.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, though relied upon

several judgments of this Court, as detailed above, relying upon

the judgment in Sri Gouranga Chandra Padhi (supra), it is

contended that , the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by

the said judgment. Relevant portion of the said judgment is

reproduced below for ready reference:

“After hearing the argument of the learned

counsel, we are not inclined to agree with the

arguments advanced by the learned Addl. Govt.

Advocate and learned counsel appearing for the

intervenor, inasmuch as when the public

documents coming from the custody of the

Page 6 of 14

public officers are having the effect of

contradicting each other, in such a case,

learned Collector should have permitted an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after

providing copies of such documents to him. So

also he should have provided him opportunity

to produce documents and adduce evidence

that he is the father of two children. Under

such circumstance, while setting aside the order,

Annexure-1, we direct learned Collector, Balasore

to undertake the enquiry afresh. If the Intervenor

wants to adduce any further evidence, he may be

permitted to do so within a period not exceeding

two weeks from the date of commencement of fresh

enquiry. Evidence, which the Collector refers to or

relies upon against the petitioner, in that respect,

petitioner be granted an opportunity to cross-

examination such persons if he opts for the same

and applies in writing. Attendance of such witness

be obtained for the purpose of cross-examination

expeditiously. After the aforesaid phase of enquiry

is completed, petitioner be granted reasonably time

of seven days to adduce his evidence and

opportunity of cross-examination, if opted for be

provided to the intervenor or the Govt. Counsel, as

the case may be. Thereafter, the parties be heard

and appropriate order be passed by learned

Collector expeditiously.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

(Emphasis supplied)

Page 7 of 14

7. Further, relying on the specific averments made in

para-10 of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

contended that, though the impugned order was passed on

03.09.2026, as required under Section 26(3) of the OGP Act, the

said order is yet to be notified on the Notice Board of the Collector

and District Magistrate, Balangir.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits,

since there is a violation of principle of natural justice and the

Collector has not followed the mandate prescribed under Section

26(2) of the OGP Act, the impugned order deserves interference.

9. Per contra, Mr. Swain, learned AGA, who represents

the State-Opposite Parties submits, as is revealed from the

impugned order dated 03.09.2026, the Petitioner was represented

through a lawyer, who appeared before the Collector and District

Magistrate, Balangir on 03.09.2026. Her lawyer could have moved

an application to permit her to adduce evidence in the said

proceeding. Apart from denying the allegations made by the

Opposite Party No.5, she did not make any specific prayer in the

said Objection to permit her to adduce evidence in the said case,

so also did not seek for an opportunity of being heard, as

prescribed under Section 26(2) of the OGP Act. Rather, she chose

to be represented through an Advocate.

Page 8 of 14

10. Mr. Swain, learned AGA further submits, Section 26(3)

of the OGP Act mandates that once an order of disqualification is

passed, such decision shall be forthwith published by the Collector

on his Notice Board. Hence, it can be well presumed that the said

order must have been published in the meantime.

11. So far as the allegations and counter allegations made

by the learned Counsel for the parties, which are based on the

legal provisions enshrined under Section 26 of the OGP Act, the

said provision is reproduced below for ready reference:

“26. Procedure of giving effect to

disqualifications-(1) Whenever it is alleged that

any Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch or any other

member is or has become disqualified or whenever

any such person is himself in doubt whether or not

he is or has become so disqualified such person or

any other member may, and the Sarpanch at the

request of the Grama Panchayat shall, apply to the

Collector for a decision on the allegation of doubt.

(2) The Collector may suo motu or on

receipt of an application under Sub-section

(1), make such enquiry as he considers necessary

and after giving the person whose

disqualification is in question an opportunity

of being heard, determine whether or not such

person is or has become disqualified and make an

order in that behalf which shall be final and

conclusive.

Page 9 of 14

(3) Where the Collector decides that the

Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch or any other member is

or has become disqualified such decision shall

be forthwith published by him on his notice-

board and with effect from the date of such

publication the Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch or

such other member, as the case may be, shall

be deemed to have vacated office, and till the

date of such publication he shall be entitled to act,

as if he was not disqualified.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. As is revealed from the order sheets in G.P. Misc. Case

No.01 of 2026, the said proceeding was registered on 14.05.2026,

on which date, the Collector, Balangir called for reports from the

District Panchayat Officer, Balangir and the Block Development

Officer, Saitala and ordered to issue notice to the present

Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party No.1 in the said

proceeding, for her appearance on 11.06.2026 for hearing in the

matter. Since on 11.06.2026 the Collector, Balangir was busy in

some official assignments, the matter was adjourned to

02.07.2026. On 02.07.2026, District Panchayat Officer was

present along with the present Opposite Party No.5, who was the

Petitioner in the said case. The present Petitioner ( Opposite Party

in the said case), appeared through her lawyer and prayed for

supply of a copy of the petition filed by the Opposite Party No.5.

Accordingly, present Opposite Party No.5 was directed to supply

Page 10 of 14

copy of the documents filed by him to the Petitioner and she was

directed to file her Objection, if any, by the next date. The matter

was adjourned to 13.08.2026 for hearing. On 13.08.2026, the

District Panchayat Officer, Balangir was present. Learned

Advocates for the parties were also present on the said date.

However, the Advocate for the present Petitioner prayed for an

adjournment for filing of the Objection; accordingly, a week’s time

was allowed to him to file his Objection, if any, with a rider that

failing which, the matter shall be heard ex-parte, and the matter

stood adjourned to 03.09.2026 for hearing.

12.1. It is further revealed from the record, being so ordered,

the Petitioner filed her objection on 20.08.2026 vide Annexure-3.

However, on the date fixed for hearing, i.e., on 03.09.2026, a joint

petition was filed in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 by the 5 Ward

Members of the said G.P. namely, Gulekha Sahu, Purnima Rana,

Kousalya Majhi, Sukanti Patel and Satyabhama Sahu. The

contents of the said joint petition, being relevant, are reproduced

below:

“We, the following Ward Members beg to

state as follows:

1. That, Sri Markanda Suna came to us sometime

in the month of February or March, 2026 and

brought an application typed and written in English

language.

Page 11 of 14

2. That, the said Markanda Suna told us that all

the Ward Members of Dunguripali Grapanchyat are

required to sign the same. We believed him in good

faith and signed the said paper. It may be noted

that the contents of that paper written in English

language were not readover and explained to us in

our language. None of us are capable of reading,

writing or understanding English language.

Therefore, we signed the said paper without

knowing the contents thereof.

3. That, later on we were informed that the said

Markanda Suna has converted that letter into an

application on our behalf and has filed the same in

this court alleging therein that Smt.Pankajini Sahu,

Sarpanch in-charge of Dunguripali Grampanchyat

has three children. But the same is not true and the

said Sarpanch in-charge Smt.Pankajini Sahu has

only two children. All of us are aware of the same.

4. That, we have decided to file this application to

bring the truth of the matter into light and for

favour of kind information of this court.

Hence necessary orders, as deemed fit in this

circumstances, may kindly be passed.”

13. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 03.09.2026, the

impugned order was passed by the Collector and District

Magistrate, Balangir relying on the Reports, as detailed in the said

petition, without hearing the learned Counsel for the present

Petitioner, whom she had engaged to defend her case in the said

proceeding. Further, since there were two different reports, on

Page 12 of 14

which the Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir relied on the

impugned order, he should have made further enquiry before

passing of the impugned order, apart from giving her opportunity

to adduce evidence to substantiate her stand in the Objection filed

by her on 20.08.2026.Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that,

the Collector, Balangir neither took in to consideration the said

joint petition filed by 5 Ward Members, while passing the

impugned order, nor gave an opportunity to the Petitioner to

examine the said Ward Members as witnesses from her side, apart

from her relatives, whom she intended to produce as witnesses in

the said proceeding.

14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going

through the materials on record, so also impugned order dated

03.09.2026, this Court is of the prima facie view that the Collector

and District Magistrate, Balangir passed the impugned order dated

03.09.2026 hastily on the very day, to which it was fixed for

hearing vide order dated 13.08.2026, which was the first date after

filing of Objection by the Petitioner on 20.08.2026. Though,

parties to the said proceeding, including the Petitioner, were

represented through lawyers, the impugned order dose not

disclose that they were heard by the Collector and District

Magistrate, Balangir before passing of the impugned order.

Page 13 of 14

15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 as

at Annexure-1 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir to re-adjudicate G.P.

Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 giving opportunity of hearing to the

parties to the said proceeding, including the Opposite Party No.5,

who is the Petitioner in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026.

16. To avoid delay, the Petitioner is directed to appear

before the Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir on

01.10.2026 along with the certified copy of this Judgment, on

which date the Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir shall fix

a date noticing the Opposite Party No.5, who is the Petitioner in

G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026, to remain present on the date

fixed, and proceed further in accordance with law.

16.1. This Court is hopeful that the enquiry shall be

conducted and completed at the earliest, preferably, by end of

December, 2026. The parties are directed not to seek for

unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate with the Collector and

District Magistrate, Balangir for early disposal of G.P. Misc. Case

No.01 of 2026, as observed above.

17. Since the impugned order has been set aside, it is

made clear that the Petitioner shall continue as Naib

Sarapanch as before, and shall exercise all her power as

Page 14 of 14

such, until a fresh decision is taken by the Collector and

District Magistrate, Balangir in G.P. Misc. Case No.01 of 2026 in

accordance with law.

18. It is made further clear that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on merit of the case of the Petitioner.

Hence, it would be open for the Collector and District Magistrate,

Balangir to take a decision afresh, based on the pleadings,

materials on record and evidences, if any, led by the parties.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

order as to costs.

20. I.A. No.18393 of 2026 also stands disposed of

accordingly.

Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted on proper

application as per rules.

…….……………………

S.K. MISHRA, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated, 23

rd September, 2026/Kanhu