Page 1 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.34287 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227

of the Constitution of India.

------------------

Sidheswar Pradhan …. Petitioner

-versus-

1. State of Odisha

2. District Election Officer-cum-

Collector, Boudh

3. The Election Officer-cum-

B.D.O., Boudh

4. Prafulla Kumar Padhi

…. Opposite Parties

For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA

Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate

(For O.P.4)

CORAM:

JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF FINAL HEARING :21.01.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT :28.01.2026

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Padhy, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State

Page 2 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

and Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the

Opposite Party No.4.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 18.11.2025

passed by the learned District Judge, Boudh in

Election Appeal No. 02 of 2025 affirming the

judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Election Tribunal, Boudh in Election Petition No.

04 of 2022, thereby declaring the election of the

Petitioner as Sarpanch of Badhigaon Gram

Panchayat of Boudh Panchayat Samiti as null

and void, the present writ petition has been filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

1

.

3. The brief facts germane for adjudication

are that the Petitioner had filed his nomination

for the post of Sarpanch of Badhigaon Gram

Panchayat of Boudh Panchayat Samiti along with

1

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Cour t.—(1)

Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court

may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice

and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the

officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and

all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders

practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause

(2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time

being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of

superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating

to the Armed Forces.

Page 3 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

Opposite Party No. 4-Prafulla Kumar Padhi. The

said election was conducted on 18.02.2022 and

during scrutiny of the nomination papers,

Opposite Party No. 4 submitted a written

objection that the Petitioner has more than two

children on the date of nomination and had also

tampered with the date of birth of his 4th

daughter (xxx) in the school admission register

in order to avoid the disqualification in terms of

Section 25(1)(v)

2

of the Orissa Grama

Panchayats (Amendments) Act, 1994.

(Redacted)

4. It was stated in the objection that though

the date of birth of the said 4

th

child is

06.03.1996, but an affidavit has been filed by

the Petitioner indicating the same as

21.11.1994.

5. Such objection was filed in the light of the

Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1994, which came

into effect on 18.04.1994, as per the Orissa

Grama Panchayats (Amendments) Act, 1994, as

published in the Orissa Gazette Ext. No. 426

2

25. Disqualification for membership of Grama Panchayat : – (1) A person

shall be disqualified for being elected or nominated as, a Sarpanch or any other

member of the Grama Panchayat constituted under this Act, if he–

(a) to (u). xxx xxx xxx

(v) has more than two Children :

Provided that the disqualification under Clause (v) shall not apply to any

person who has more than two Children on the date of commencement of the

Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 or, as the case may be, within a

period of one year of such commencement, unless he begets an additional child

after the said period of one year.

xxx xxx xxx

Page 4 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

dated 19.04.1994 (Notification No. 6139-Legis/

19.04.1994). As per the said notification, any

child begotten after one year, i.e., 18.04.1995,

would ipso facto attract the disqualification under

Section 25(1)(v)

2

of the Orissa Grama

Panchayats (Amendments) Act, 1994.

The provisions and the relevance thereof

would be adverted to at a later stage.

6. Since despite the Opposite Party No.4 ’s

written objection, the Petitioner was allowed to

contest the election and was subsequently

declared elected as Sarpanch of Badhigaon Gram

Panchayat of Boudh Panchayat Samiti, being

aggrieved, the said Opposite Party No.4 filed

Election Petition No.04 of 2022 in the Court of

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

Election Tribunal, Boudh and in the said Election

Petition, the Petitioner- the returned candidate

was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1, and the

Election Officer-cum-B.D.O., Boudh and District

Election Officer-cum-Collector, Boudh were cited

as Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3.

The Opposite Parties filed their written

statements fortifying their respective stands.

7. It is apt to note that the Opposite Party

Nos.2 & 3, the Election Officer-cum-B.D.O.,

Page 5 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

Boudh and the District Election Officer-cum-

Collector, Boudh in their written statements

admitted that during scrutiny of nomination

papers, the Opposite Party No.4- Prafulla Kumar

Padhi (hereinafter referred to as the ―Election

Petitioner‖) had filed a written objection seeking

rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner

(Opposite Party No.1 before the learned Election

Tribunal) on the ground that the Petitioner has

more than two children by the cut-off date.

8. In the written statement the Petitioner-the

returned candidate stated that the allegations

are false and took a positive stand that his

daughter in question was born on 21.11.1994.

9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties,

the Election Tribunal framed the following issues

for adjudication:-

(i) Whether the election petition is

maintainable in the eye of law?

(ii) Whether there is any legal cause of

action that compels the petitioner to file this

case?

(iii) Whether the election petition is barred

by law of limitation and bad for misjoinder of

parties?

(iv) Whether O.P. No.1 had more than two

children at the time of election?

(v) Whether the election of the winning

candidate (O.P. No.1) be declared null and

void?

Page 6 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

(vi) To what other reliefs, the petitioner is

entitled?‖

10. In support of their respective claims, the

Election Petitioner (Opposite Party No.4 before

this Court) examined himself and two other

witnesses. The Petitioner as the ―returned

candidate‖ examined himself as O.P.W.1 and the

doctor, who issued the birth certificate, as

O.P.W.2. Several documents were exhibited on

behalf of the Election Petitioner as well as the

Opposite Party No.4. Out of the same, Ext.7-

R.T.I. reply and Ext.A-Birth Certificate of the

child in question are of significance.

11. The Election Tribunal took note of Ext.7,

which is on record before this Court at page-74,

indicating that the daughter of the Petitioner

appeared in annual HSC examination of 2011

and the date of publication of the result was

25.06.2011 and the date of birth of the daughter

of the Petitioner in question was 06.03.1996.

For convenience of ready reference Ext.7

is culled out hereunder;

Page 7 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

The name of the Petitioner’s daughter in

question, Roll No. as well as the Enrolment No.

have been redacted to protect privacy.

12. The learned Election Tribunal also took

note of the entry in Ext.5-the School Admission

Register of Badhigaon Primary School indicating

that the date of birth of daughter of the

Petitioner is 06.03.1996.

12-A. It is apt to note that recording of such date

of birth is in vernacular and the learned Election

Tribunal discarded the stand of the Petitioner

Page 8 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

that the same was corrected as 03.10.1994 on

the basis of his application-Ext.6.

12-B. In arriving at such conclusion, the learned

Election Tribunal referred to the evidence of

P.W.3 (Jangyaseni Pattnaik), the present

Headmaster of Badhigaon Primary School,

indicating that the date of birth of the daughter

of the Petitioner-the returned candidate was

recorded as 06.03.1996. The said date of birth

has been corrected ―by rounding in red colour

ink as 03.10.1994‖ by one B. Sahu. ―No

endorsement is there with regard to such

correction. Also the register doesn't contain

anything about any document on the basis of

which the date of birth of xxx was corrected.‖

(Redacted)

13. In this context, it is apt to note the

deposition of the Petitioner, who in cross-

examination has stated thus:-

―16. I have not given any application to

change or correct the date of birth of my

daughter in her M.E school admission

register.‖

14. Ext.A- the Certificate of Birth issued under

Section 12

3

of the Registration of Births and

3

12. Certificate of registration of births or deaths. —The Registrar shall, as

soon as the registration of a birth or death has been completed, but not later than

seven days, give, free of charge, electronically or otherwise under his signature, to

the person who gives information under Section 8 or Section 9, a certificate

Page 9 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

Deaths Act, 1969 and Rules of Odisha Births and

Deaths, Rule 2001

4

, heavily relied upon by the

learned counsel for the Petitioner- returned

candidate and marked as Ext.A, indicating the

date of birth of the child in question of the

Petitioner as 21.11.1994, was discarded by the

Election Tribunal, since admittedly the said Ext.A

was issued on 04.05.2022, after the institution

of the Election Petition on 14.03.2022.

Disregarding the contention that the certificate

of birth, in terms of Section 35

5

of the Indian

Evidence Act, having been issued under the

statutory provisions as contained in the

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969,

ought to have primacy, the learned Election

Tribunal negated the defence of the Petitioner-

the returned candidate, and allowed the Election

Petition, concluding that the date of birth of the

daughter of the Petitioner- the returned

candidate is 06.03.1996, and as such he has

incurred the disqualification under Section

25(1)(v)

2

of the Orissa Grama Panchayat

extracted from the register relating to such birth or death in such form and

manner as may be prescribed.

4

The Orissa Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2001

5

35. Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record, made in

performance of duty. —An entry in any public or other official book, register or

record [or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made

by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in

performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such

book, register or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

Page 10 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

(Amendment) Act, 1994, and consequentially

declared his election as null and void.

15. The relevant finding in paragraph-7 under

Issues Nos. IV & V relating to the date of birth

vis-à-vis the Orissa Grama Panchayat

(Amendment) Act, 1994 is extracted hereunder

for convenience of reference:-

―In this case the date of birth of the

daughter of O.P.No.1 is 06.03.1996. So, her

estimated conception date is 6

th

March 1996

- 266 days =14

th

June 1995. So, if the cut-

off date under the Orissa Gram Panchayat

(Amendment) Act is 18.04.1995, then a

child conceived on 14.06.1995 would be

considered as begotten by O.P.No.1 after

the expiry of one-year grace period (which

ended on 17.04.1995), hence, thereby

rendering O.P.No.1 disqualified under

Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Gram

Panchayat Act. His election as Sarpanch is

therefore liable to be declared null and

void.‖

16. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed

Election Appeal No.02 of 2025. And, the

judgment of the learned Appellate Court assailed

in this writ petition, as noted hereinabove.

17. The learned Appellate Court, taking into

account the submissions of the Petitioner as well

as the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party No.4),

Page 11 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

formulated the following points for determination

and the same is extracted hereunder:-

―(i) Whether Dipanjali Pradhan is the fourth

child of the appellant.

(ii) Whether the appellant had more than

two children after the cut-off date.

(iii) Whether the date of birth of Dipanjali

Pradhan is 06.03.1996 or 21.11.1994.

(iv) Whether the entries made in the School

Admission Register has been subsequently

interpolated.

(v) Whether the evidentiary value of the

entry made in the School Admission

Registers would prevail over the Birth

Certificate which is a post litigated

document.‖

17-A. He also referred to the judgments relied

upon by the respective parties.

18. On an analysis of the evidence on record,

the learned Appellate Court noted thus:-

―………The crux is whether the entries in the

school admission registers are to be believed

or the Birth Certificate issued by a

competent authority is to prevail over those

entries. In this regard the evidence of P.W. 2

and 3 is relevant who have proved the said

entries in the School Admission Registers

where the date of birth of xxx is noted as

06.03.1996.‖

(Redacted)

And, considering the rival submissions in

the light of Section 35

5

of the Indian Evidence

Page 12 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

Act, 1872 that the returned candidate, the

Petitioner has not been able to discharge the

burden that the death of birth of his daughter is

21.11.1994 even in the light of Ext.A affirmed

the judgment of the Election Tribunal.

19. In paragraph-16 of the judgment passed

by the learned Appellate Court, the discrepancy

between Ext.A, on which, the case of the

Petitioner solely rests, and the corrected date of

birth in the School Register at Ext.5 as

03.10.1994 has been noted and taking note that

the steps for obtaining Ext.A were initiated only

after the filing of the Election Petition, and taking

into account its probative value in the

background the same was applied for, it was

held that Ext.A cannot override the clinching

evidence on record that the date of birth of the

Petitioner’s daughter is 06.03.1996. As such, the

learned Appellate Court concurred with the

finding of the Election Tribunal that the

Petitioner- the returned candidate has incurred

the disqualification in terms of Section 25(1)(v)

2

of the Orissa Grama Panchayat (Amendment)

Act, 1994 and dismissed the appeal.

20. In assailing the judgment of the Election

Tribunal and the Appellate Court Learned counsel

Page 13 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

for the Petitioner, Mr. Padhi relies on the

following judgments:-

i) Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit

6

ii) Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Bra t

Narain Sinha and others

7

iii) Chakamana Naik vs. Collector,

Kalahandi and others

8

21. Leaned counsel for the Petitioner submits

that the Election Tribunal as well as the

Appellate Court have grossly erred in law in

evaluating the evidentiary value of Ext.A, which

clearly indicated the date of birth of the daughter

of the Petitioner as 21.11.1994. Therefore, the

judgment of the Courts below is liable to be set-

aside and the Petitioner, who was democratically

elected, ought not to be unseated.

22. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.

Samantaray for the Opposite Party No.4

(Election Petitioner) supports the findings of the

Appellate Court as well as the Election Tribunal

and submits that the stand of both the parties

has been discussed threadbare and the order of

the Appellate Court is based on sound reasoning,

which does not call for any interference.

6

Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit , 1988 Supp SCC 604: AIR 1988 SC 1796

7

Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha , 1964 SCC OnLine SC 16: AIR 1965 SC

282

8

Chakamana Naik v. Collector , 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 472: (2011) 111 CLT 718

Page 14 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

23. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party

No.4 (Election Petitioner) relies on the decision

of this Court in the case of Bideshi Sethi vs.

Smt. Monalisa Das & ors

9

.

24. There is no dispute that Ext.A, on which

the Petitioner- the returned candidate heavily

relies, was issued on 04.05.2022 i.e., after the

institution of the Election Petition.

25. In the said certificate, the date of birth of

the daughter of the Petitioner has been shown as

21.11.1994 and one doctor Antaryami Behera

was shown as the issuing authority and the said

doctor has been examined as O.P.W.2. In his

cross-examination he has stated that ―The Birth

certificate of xxx has been issued on the basis of

the Aadhaar Card of her father Sidheswar

Pradhan (O.P No. 1)‖.

Paragraph-7 of the further cross-

examination of O.P.W.2 runs thus:-

―It is a fact that in the said register,

names of other kids have not been mentioned in

Col. No.5 except the name of xxxx against entry

no. 2427 which has been made in a different ink. I

cannot say who made entries in the said register.

Before issuing the birth certificate I have not

verified any document with regard to birth and

identification of xxx except the affidavit submitted

by her father. I have also not made any local

9

Bideshi Sethi v. Monalisa Das, 2011(Supp. I)OLR614

Page 15 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

enquiry as to why such application was made at a

later stage.‖

(Redacted)

26. It is of great relevance and significance to

note that the date of birth in Ext. A is at variance

with the date of birth of the Petitioner’s daughter

as reflected in Ext. 5. Inasmuch as in Ext. A it is

stated as 21.11.1994, whereas in Ext. 5 the date

of birth, which was initially 06.03.1996 in

vernacular, later corrected and shown as

03.10.1994.

There is no explanation relating to such

material discrepancy which, in the given

circumstances lends credence to the allegation

that Ext. A has been procured after initiation of

the Election Misc. Case. Hence, credence was not

accorded by the Appellate Court as well as the

Election Tribunal.

26-A. In the light of such discrepancy, as noted

and the evidence on record including the

background of issuance of Ext.A, the judgments

cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner

have to be analysed.

27. The judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Birad Mal Singhvi (Supra)

6

relates to

rejection of nomination papers of three

candidates, namely, Smt. Umrao Ben,

Page 16 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, inter alia,

on the ground that they were below 25 years of

age.

The High Court of Rajasthan came to a

finding that the rejection of nomination papers of

Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was

improper since both the candidates had attained

the qualifying age of 25 years on the date

nomination, and on such finding, the Petitioner’s

election was set-aside which was assailed before

the Apex Court.

While considering the appeal preferred by

the Petitioner- the returned candidate in the said

judgment, the Apex Court has clearly noted

while referring to Section 35

5

of the Indian

Evidence Act that mere proof of documents

would not tantamount to proof of all the contents

or correctness of the date of birth stated in the

documents, and the Apex Court further noted

that ―the truth or otherwise of the facts in issue,

namely, the date of birth of the candidate as

mentioned in the documents must be proved by

admissible evidence‖ and negated the finding by

the High Court of Rajasthan merely referring to

the entries in Exts. 8 to 12 therein relating to the

Page 17 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

date of birth in the absence of any independent

evidence.

27-A. The primary ground on which the Apex

Court interfered is that though the School

register is relevant and admissible under Section

35 of the Indian Evidence Act but such entry is

not of much evidentiary value to prove the age

of the persons in the absence of the material on

which the age was recorded.

27-B. In the considered view of this Court, in the

factual matrix of the case at hand, the decision

cited is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in

the present writ petition the discrepancy in the

School Register- Ext.5 and the certificate of birth

issued- Ext.A has remained unanswered.

The change in the date of birth in the

School Register assumes significance since,

though initially a stand was taken that the same

was done on the application of the Petitioner,

such application being on record as Ext. 6, the

Petitioner in his evidence as noted, has

unambiguously stated that he has not sought

such correction.

28. It also does not stand to reason that no

steps were taken for correction of the date of

birth of the daughter of the Petitioner as

Page 18 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

mentioned in Ext. 7- the certificate issued by the

Board of Secondary Education for the annual

HSC Examination, 2011 indicating her date of

birth to be 06.03.1996, as against the presently

claimed date of birth in Ext.A i.e. 21.11.1994.

28-A. The decision relating to the case of

Chakamana Naik (Supra)

8

does not throw any

light on the issue involved in the case at hand.

Inasmuch as, the question for consideration in

the said case was whether the birth certificate-

Ext.A therein issued by the medical officer who

had authority under the Registration of Births

and Deaths Act, 1969, could be discarded and a

birth recorded by an unauthorised clerk

accepted.

28-B. Similarly, the other judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh

(Supra)

7

is also clearly distinguishable on facts.

The principal issue in the said case was

whether Brij Mohan Singh had incurred

disqualification for election to the Bihar

Legislative Assembly on the ground of being

underage and for allegedly committing corrupt

practices. The Apex Court examined the

evidence relating to the age of Brij Mohan Singh

Page 19 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

as well as the allegation regarding publication of

defamatory pamphlets.

It was observed that the evidence on

record did not establish that Singh was below 25

years of age on the date of nomination, nor did it

prove the commission of any corrupt practice.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order

of the High Court was set aside, and the decision

of the Election Tribunal dismissing the election

petition was restored, with costs awarded to Brij

Mohan Singh.

29. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 4

has relied on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Bideshi Sethi (supra)

9

and referring to

the said judgment, it is submitted that Ext. A in

the case at hand, on which much reliance is

being placed, is liable to be rejected since the

same is not a contemporaneous document,

having admittedly been issued during the

currency of the litigation i.e., after filing of the

Election Petition.

30. On considering the rival submissions,

referring to the evidence on record and the

analysis thereof by the Election Tribunal as well

as the Appellate Court, this Court is of the

considered view that the Petitioner has not been

Page 20 of 20

W.P.(C) No. 34287 of 2025

able to establish that the date of birth of the

child is 21.11.1994 as claimed, inter alia on

account of discrepancy as noted, regarding the

date of birth in Ext.A as well as the corrected

date of birth i.e. 03.10.1994 reflected in Ext.5-

School Admission Register.

In the light of the discussion of evidence

as above, the submission that Ext.A ought to be

accorded primacy have to be negated.

As such there being no infirmity in the

findings recorded by the learned Election

Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Appellate

Court vide the impugned judgments

dtd.17.04.2025 and 18.11.2025 at Annexures-1

Series & 2 respectively, the writ petition

assailing the same being devoid of merit is

dismissed.

31. The interim order stands vacated.

32. Consequential steps in terms of the order

passed by the learned Election Tribunal be taken

in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa

Grama Panchayats (Amendments) Act, 1994.

33. Costs made easy.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 28

th

January, 2026/Ayesha