SATYANANDA MOHANTY vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
------------------

Satyananda Mohanty …. Petitioner
-versus-

1. State of Odisha
represented through its
Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj and
Drinking Water
Department, At –
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar
2. Collector Cum District
Magistrate, Balasore
3. Sub Collector, Balasore
4. Block Development officer
cum Election officer,
Baliapal
5. Kashinath Patra
Opposite Parties
….


Ms. P. Rath, Sr. Advocate
For Petitioner :
Mr. S. Tibrewal, Advocate
Mr. A. Khandelwal, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 4)
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Adv.
(for O.P. No.5)



1 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH


DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 24.03.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.06.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Ms. Rath, learned Senior
Counsel along with learned counsel Mr. Tibrewal
and Mr. Khandelwal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Additional
Government Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.1 to
4 and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.5.
1. The Petitioner, Sarpanch of Dagra Gram
Panchayat has filed the present writ application
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
assailing the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by
the Opposite Party No.2 (Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Balasore) vide Annexure-6 whereby,
the election of the Petitioner was held to be void
2 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

1
in terms of the provisions under Section 25(1)(v)
of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to “Act 1964”) for having
more than two children after the cutoff date i.e.
21.04.1995 , prescribed under the Act, 1964, in
G.P. Election Case No.15 of 2023 instituted at the
behest of Opposite Party No.5.
2. It is apt to note that, relating to the
present term of the Petitioner as Sarpanch, this is
the second round of litigation. In as much as, by
order dated 01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.124 of
2024, at the behest of the Petitioner, this Court
set aside the order of the Collector dated
07.11.2023 passed in G.P. Election Case No.15 of
2023, instituted by Opposite Party No.5, inter
alia, on the ground that the Collector had not

1
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.
3 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

duly taken note of the Petitioner’s stand that he
had not incurred the disqualification of having
more than two children after the cut-off date.
3. In terms of the said order, the matter was
heard afresh in the very G.P. Election Case No.15
of 2023 and the impugned order has been passed
vide Annexure-6.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Rath,
appearing for the Petitioner, assailed the
impugned order passed by the Collector,
contending that the same is ex facie against the
spirit of the order passed by this Court dated
01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2024, in as
much as the Opposite Party No.2 has merely
reiterated the earlier finding, which ex facie is a
manifestation of non-application of mind.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. M.K.
Mohanty, appearing for Opposite Party No.5
(Petitioner in the Election Case in question),
submits that the Collector has taken note of the
4 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

contentions and has passed a reasoned order,
even referring to the earlier litigation before the
Civil Court, this Court and other forums and upon
a cogent analysis of the materials on record, has
passed the impugned order, which does not call
for any interference.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner,
though disqualified, is somehow trying to hold on
to the post of Sarpanch notwithstanding that he
is not entitled to do so in view of the provisions
1
contained in Section 25(1)(v) of the Act, 1964,
since he has more than two children after the
cut-off date.
6. It is the case of the Opposite Party No.5
that the Petitioner and his wife are blessed with
the following four offsprings;
i. Sibani Mohanty, D.O.B.-01.04.1994
ii. Tanushree Mohanty, D.O.B.- 19.06.1996
iii. Pankaj Mohanty, D.O.B.-20.04.2000
iv. Itishree Mohanty, D.O.B.-04.03.2001
5 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

7. And, it is the case of Opposite Party No.5
that three of the Petitioner’s children having been
born after the cutoff date, i.e., 21.04.1995, the
Petitioner incurs the disqualification in terms of
1
Section 25(1)(v) of the Act, 1964 and to fortify
his submission, learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No.5 (election Petitioner) has relied on the
following;
The Opposite Party No.1 has four
“1.
children i.e. Shibani Mohanty, Tanushree
Mohanty, Itishree Mohanty and Pankaj
Mohanty as reported by the C.D.P.O,
Baliapal.
2. As per Block Education Officer,
Baliapal, in admission register of Dagara
Basic School, Dagara of the year-2005, it is
mentioned at S.L. No.27/1236 that Sri
Pankaj Kumar Mohanty is the son of
Satyananda Mohanty and Smt. Abanti
Mohanty and similarly, in admission
register of the year-2006 at S.L.
No.16/1273 it is mentioned that Kumari
Etishree Mohanty is the daughter of
6 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

Satyananda Mohanty and Smt. Abanti
Mohanty.
3. The petitioner has filed certified copy
of admission register of Dagara Moulika
Vidyalaya wherein it is mentioned that
Pankaj Kumar Mohanty and Kumari Itishree
Mohanty are the children of Sri Satyananda
Mohanty and having dates of birth
28.04.2000 and 04.03.2001 respectively.
4. The petitioner has submitted the
certified copy of report of I/C Medical
Officer, CHC, Baliapal, Balasore vide Letter
No.12 dated-16.01.2006 which speaks that
as per birth Register of C.H.C. Baliapal,
Dist-Balasore of the year of 2000 at S.L.
No.885, the child namely Sri Pankaj Kumar
Mohanty S/o-Satyananda Mohanty & Abanti
Mohanty vill-Dagara, PS-Baliapal, Dist-
Balasore having date of birth 28.04.2000 is
entered and he is the third child of
Satyananda Mohanty and Abanti Mohanty.
5. The petitioner has filed certified copy
of self-declaration in L.I.C bond dated-
01.12.2003 wherein it has been mentioned
that Pankaj Kumar Mohanty is the son of
7 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

Satyananda Mohanty and Smt. Abanti
Mohanty.
6. The petitioner has filed certified copy
of order dated-03.03.2014 passed in Civil
Suit No.145 of 2007-1 filed by Sri
Satyananda Mohanty regarding declaration
of the defendant No.4 & 5 namely Sri
Pankaj Ku, Mohanty and Kumari Itishree
Mohanty are being not the son and
daughter of Sri Satyananda Mohanty. The
Civil Judge (Jr. Division),Balasore has
dismissed the suit being default of both the
Parties u/o 9 rule 3 CPC.
7. The petitioner has filed certified copy
of Eligible Couple Register in the year 2002
wherein it has been mentioned that Sri
Satyananda Mohanty and Smt. Abanti
Mohanty have been blessed with four
children.”
8. In defense, the present Petitioner relied on
the academic records of Pankaj Mohanty and
Itishree Mohanty to state that they are the
children of Shaktipada Mohanty and Anjali
Mohanty and that their dates of birth are
10.11.1998 and 10.01.2000, respectively. The
8 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

Petitioner also disputed the dates of birth of
Pankaj Mohanty and Itishree Mohanty, as claimed
by Opposite Party No.5- Election Petitioner and
relied on their academic records, Aadhaar card,
PAN card and Voter ID card.
So far as the academic records are
concerned, it was the assertion of the Petitioner
that Pankaj Mohanty and Itishree Mohanty had
completed their primary school education from
Jamatkula Primary School, which was previously
known as Jamatkula E.G.S.
8-A. It is further stated that in the said school
Admission Register, the names of the parents of
Pankaj Kumar Mohanty and Itishree Mohanty
were recorded as Shaktipada Mohanty (father)
and Anjali Mohanty (mother). Similarly, the date
of birth of Pankaj Kumar Mohanty was recorded
as 10.11.1998 and the D.O.B. of Itishree
Mohanty was recorded as 10.01.2000.
9 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

8-B. It is the case of the Petitioner that
Pankaj Mohanty completed his High School
studies at Raghunath High School, Raikama,
Mayurbhanj and Itishree Mohanty completed her
High School studies at Gadadhara Smruti
Uchabidyapitha, Dagara, Balasore. Both of them
passed the H.S.C. examination in the year 2015
and thereafter pursued their further studies. All
the academic records go to establish that Pankaj
Mohanty and Itishree Mohanty are not the
children of the Petitioner and his wife. The said
documents have also been annexed to the writ
petition.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also
referred to the RTI information submitted to one
Abanti Mohanty indicating that Itishree Mohanty
is the daughter of Anjali Mohanty and Shaktipada
Mohanty, which is on record in the present writ
application.
10 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

10. Referring to the counter affidavit filed,
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5
reiterated the stand of the election Petitioner
before the adjudicating authority and it is his
specific stand that Annexures-7 to 13, relied upon
by the Petitioner, are all fabricated and ought not
to weigh with this Court to interfere with the
finding of fact by the adjudicating authority, the
Collector, based on cogent reasoning.
11. It is further submitted with vehemence by
the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5
that, in view of the filing of Election Misc. Case
No.2 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Balasore, the Petitioner has
surreptitiously managed to change the parentage
of Itishree Mohanty and Pankaj Mohanty and
"created and manufactured" the documents to
indicate that the said Itishree Mohanty and
Pankaj Mohanty are the children of Shaktipada
Mohanty and Anjali Mohanty, as no document
11 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

prior to 2007 has been filed and, as has been
rightly held by the adjudicating authority, no
credence can be given to such documents post-
2007.
12. Learned counsel for the State also seeks
dismissal of the writ petition by filing a counter
affidavit and submits that there is no infirmity in
the order passed and also refutes the allegation
that adequate opportunity was not given.
In response, Rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by the Petitioner.
13. On perusal of the impugned order passed
by the adjudicating authority, Opposite Party
No.2, it is seen that the said authority has
referred in detail to the documents submitted by
the election Petitioner as well as the ones
submitted by the writ Petitioner, the elected
Sarpanch.
He has also taken note of the litigation
since 2007 on the self-same grounds of the
12 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

Petitioner having more than two children and
came to the conclusion that, since no fresh
material post-2007 has been brought on record,
the stand of the election Petitioner (Opposite
Party No.5 herein) has to be accepted in
preference to that of the writ Petitioner, elected
representative.
14. It cannot be lost sight of that, to establish
his case, the Petitioner has relied on documents
which are in public domain such as the Aadhaar
card and educational certificates issued by the
Board of Secondary Education, etc.
15. There is nothing on record to indicate that
any steps have been taken by the administration
for cancellation of the Aadhaar card, which is
prima facie considered an important document in
establishing identity.
Merely because the documents relied upon
by the Petitioner were post-2007, the same
cannot be ignored, as claimed by the State as
13 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

well as Opposite Party No. 5, in the backdrop of
Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2007 instituted in the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Balasore and litigation in different forums relating
to the Petitioner and his wife having more than
two children post cutoff date, thereby becoming
disqualified in terms of the provisions of Section
1
25(1)(v) of the Act, 1964.
15-A. It is also not borne out from the
record that the Opposite Party No.5-Election
Petitioner has adduced any contrary evidence
regarding the documents relied upon by the
Petitioner (Election representative).
16. Hence, this Court is of the considered view
that the matter merits fresh adjudication at the
hands of Opposite Party No. 2 (Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Balasore). Consequentially,
the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 at
Annexure-6 is quashed.
14 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

17. While adjudicating the competing
claims of Petitioner and Opposite Party No.5
(Election Petitioner) afresh, to arrive at a just
conclusion, the Opposite Party No. 2 (Collector-
cum-District Magistrate, Balasore) shall record
specific finding relating to the documents, which
are in the public domain and relied upon by the
Petitioner and their probative value vis-à-vis the
stand of the election Petitioner (Opposite Party
No.5), on the basis of materials relied upon him.
17-A. It shall be open to the Opposite Party
No.2 (Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore)
to take such steps, in accordance with law, to
establish the parentage of Pankaj Mohanty and
Itishree Mohanty, since the bone of contention in
the lis primarily centers around the paternity of
Pankaj Mohanty and Itishree Mohanty.
18. Considering the nature of the
litigation, where the competence of the Petitioner
to continue is being questioned, the interest of
15 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025

justice would be subserved if Opposite Party No.
2 (Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore) is
directed to conclude the proceeding within a
period of six weeks from the date of appearance
of the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No. 5.
19. To cut short avoidable delay, the Petitioner
as well as Opposite Party No.5 shall appear
before the Collector on 06.07.2026.
20. It is needless to state that this Court had
not expressed any views regarding the veracity of
the claim of the Petitioner or the Opposite
Parties.
21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. Costs made easy.

(V. Narasingh)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 30 June, 2026/ Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Jul-2026 18:15:03
16 16
Page of
W.P.(C). No.8051 of 2025