Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 243
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 4129 of 2026)
RAMADEBI RAUTRAY ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 3528 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026
1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal by special leave arises from
th
the common judgment and order dated 15
December, 2025 passed by the High Court of Orissa
1
at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 filed by the
2
appellant, Ramadebi Rautray , and W.P.(C) No. 5196
3
of 2025, filed by the respondent, Basanti Sahoo ,
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-election petitioner”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as the “respondent-returned candidate”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.16
19:26:48 IST
Reason:
1
whereby the High Court dismissed both the writ
petitions and upheld the order of the Court of the
st 4
learned 1 Additional District Judge, Puri ,
disqualifying the respondent-returned candidate
from the post of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat as well as of Chairman
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti and directing re-
election for the said post.
I. BRIEF FACTS
3. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for
the disposal of the appeal are as below.
4. The appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate contested the
elections for the post of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Delang Kothabad Gram Panchayat, and Harirajpur
Gram Panchayat, respectively, in the year 2022. Both
were duly elected as members from their respective
constituencies.
5. Pursuant to being elected as members of
Panchayat Samitis, both the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
contested the election for the post of Chairman of the
4
Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Appellate Tribunal”.
2
Delang Panchayat Samiti. It is important to note here
that the appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate were the only two
contestants for the post of Chairman. The
respondent-returned candidate was declared elected,
whereas the appellant-election petitioner lost the
election for the post of Chairman.
6. The appellant-election petitioner instituted
Election Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022 before the learned
5
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili challenging the
election of respondent-returned candidate as the
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti, on the ground that she was disqualified from
contesting the said election, as she had given birth to
a third child after the cut-off date and hence, she was
barred from contesting the election to the post of
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat in view of the embargo contained in
Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act,
6
1959 .
5
Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Tribunal”.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as the “1959 Act”.
3
7. In the proceedings before the Election Tribunal,
the appellant-election petitioner examined herself as
PW-1, and two more witnesses were examined in
support of her case. Ten documents were produced
and exhibited in order to substantiate the plea that
the respondent-returned candidate stood disqualified
on the ground of having a third child born to her after
the cut-off date. The respondent-returned candidate,
despite being afforded ample opportunities, neither
cross-examined the appellant-election petitioner and
her witnesses, nor did she lead any evidence in her
own defense. Consequently, the evidence of the
appellant-election petitioner remained
uncontroverted.
8. The election petition was allowed by the Election
Tribunal, declaring the election of the respondent-
returned candidate as Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat to be invalid and as a
consequence, her election to the post of Chairman of
the Delang Panchayat Samiti was also declared to be
void.
9. The Election Tribunal also passed a
consequential order in favour of the appellant-
election petitioner and declared her to be the
4
Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, being the
candidate who secured next highest number of votes.
The competent authority was accordingly directed to
fill up the post of the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti by appointing the appellant-
election petitioner to the said post.
10. Being aggrieved, the respondent-returned
candidate preferred Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024
before the Election Appellate Tribunal. The said
appeal was disposed of by upholding the declaration
of the Election Tribunal that the election of the
respondent-returned candidate as Panchayat Samiti
Member of the Harirajpur Gram Panchayat was
invalid. However, the consequential declaration made
in favour of the appellant-election petitioner directing
her appointment as the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, was set aside. The Election
Appellate Tribunal accordingly directed fresh election
for the said post.
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Election
Appellate Tribunal, both the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
5
7
filed writ petitions before the High Court. The
appellant-election petitioner challenged the direction
for fresh election to the post of Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti, whereas the respondent-
returned candidate assailed the finding whereby she
had been disqualified from holding the office of
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and that of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment, dismissed both the writ petitions and
upheld the judgment of the Election Appellate
Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, both the appellant and
the respondent are before this Court by way of
separate special leave petitions.
II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED
12. Shri Umakant Misra, learned counsel
representing the appellant-election petitioner, urged
that the plea taken by the respondent-returned
candidate that she was not granted an opportunity to
defend herself is wholly unfounded. He referred to the
findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the High Court
7
W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 (filed by appellant-election petitioner); W.P.(C)
No. 5196 of 2025 (filed by respondent-returned candidate).
6
judgment, wherein reference has been made to the
proceeding sheets of the Election Tribunal, and
submitted that ample opportunities had been
provided to the respondent-returned candidate to
contest the case and to cross-examine the witnesses.
However, she did not avail of such opportunities and
her endeavour was aimed at delaying the disposal of
the election petition.
13. He further submitted that the evidence of the
appellant-election petitioner, examined as PW-1, was
not completed on a single day but was deferred on
several dates at the request of the respondent-
returned candidate. However, when cross-
examination was not conducted and the proceedings
were sought to be lingered on, the cross-examination
was closed by the Election Tribunal. The order
closing cross-examination of the witnesses was never
challenged thereafter and has thus attained finality.
Similar was the situation for the other witnesses
examined by the appellant-election petitioner. Thus,
the case set up by the appellant-election petitioner
seeking disqualification of the respondent-returned
candidate on the ground of having a third child born
to her after the cut-off date remained uncontroverted
7
leading to the inevitable consequence of voiding of
respondent-returned candidate election as
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and consequently as Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti.
14. Shri Misra further submitted that the Election
Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into
grave error in denying the consequential relief of
appointment to the post of Chairman to the
appellant-election petitioner. He urged that Section
45(1)(v) of the 1959 Act, which provides for
disqualification on the ground of having more than
two children, once attracted, renders the returned
candidate statutorily disqualified from holding the
office. It was urged that where a returned candidate
suffers from such a statutory disqualification, the
election petitioner is entitled as of right to seek
setting aside of the election of the disqualified
candidate along with consequential reliefs flowing
therefrom. He further urged that the provisions of the
1959 Act, more particularly, Sections 44-E and 44-J
aim to provide an effective and meaningful remedy in
election disputes so as to avoid unnecessary elections
where the outcome is effectively determinable on the
8
basis of the votes already polled. In the present case,
only the appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate contested the
election for the post of Chairman. He thus contended
that once the election of the respondent-returned
candidate was set aside, the only permissible and
natural consequence was to declare the appellant-
election petitioner elected to the post of Chairman, as
she had secured the next highest number of valid
votes.
15.
Per contra, Shri Kedar Nath Tripathy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-returned
candidate, vehemently and fervently contended that:
(i) the Election Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to
try the election petition filed by the appellant-election
petitioner; and (ii) the respondent-returned candidate
was not afforded adequate opportunity to contest the
election petition and to adduce evidence in her
defense.
16. He further submitted that, as a matter of fact,
only one child was born to the respondent-returned
candidate, whereas the other two children were born
from her husband’s first marriage and thus, she was
9
wrongly and unjustly declared disqualified from the
posts.
III. ANALYSIS
17. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the impugned orders.
18. The issue of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal
was not seriously contested by the respondent-
returned candidate on any valid legal ground and
thus, the same does not merit consideration.
19. So far as the decision of the Election Tribunal, as
affirmed by the Election Appellate Tribunal and the
High Court, disqualifying the respondent-returned
candidate is concerned, the same does not require
any interference whatsoever, because manifestly,
from the material available on record, it is clear that
the respondent-returned candidate failed to cross-
examine the appellant-election petitioner and her
witnesses, despite ample opportunities having been
granted to her.
20. It is apparent that, by avoiding cross-
examination of the witnesses, the respondent-
returned candidate was attempting to buy time and
10
defer the inevitable consequence i.e., declaration of
her election as Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur
Gram Panchayat, invalid on account of the
disqualification contained in Section 45(1)(v) of the
1959 Act. The appellant-election petitioner having led
clinching evidence (which remained uncontroverted)
of facts necessary to prove such disqualification, the
necessary consequence was the disqualification of
the respondent-returned candidate. Hence, the three
concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal, Election
Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court on this aspect
require no interference of this Court.
21. Insofar as the claim of the appellant-election
petitioner for the post of Chairman is concerned,
reference may be gainfully made to Sections 44-E and
44-J of the 1959 Act, which read as follows:
“Section 44-E. Relief that may be claimed by
the petitioner. –
A petitioner may, in addition to
claiming a declaration that the
election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void, claim a further
declaration that he himself or any
other candidate, has been duly
elected.
Section 44-J. Decision of Civil Judge (Senior
Division). –
11
(1) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
after making such enquiry, as he
deems necessary, finds in respect of
any person whose election is called in
question by a petition that his election
was valid, he shall dismiss the petition
as against such person and may award
costs at his discretion.
(2) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
finds that the election of any person
was invalid, it shall either-
(a) declare that a casual vacancy
to have been created; or
(b) declare another candidate to
have been duly elected;
whichever course appears, in the
circumstances of the case to be more
appropriate and in either case, may
award costs at his discretion.
(3) In the event of the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) declaring a casual
vacancy to have been created, it shall
direct the Collector of the district or
such other authority prescribed in this
behalf to take proceedings for filling the
vacancy.
(4) All orders of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) shall, subject to any order
passed in an appeal, if any, be final
and conclusive:”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. A plain reading of Sections 44-E and 44-J of the
1959 Act makes it amply clear that the former
provision permits the election petitioner to claim
relief not only for having the election of the returned
12
candidate declared invalid, but also for declaring the
election petitioner duly elected to the post. The latter
provision, i.e., Section 44-J(2)(b), confers jurisdiction
upon the Civil Judge/Election Tribunal to declare
any other candidate as duly elected in cases where
the election of the originally returned candidate is
found to be invalid.
23. Indisputably, in the present case, the appellant-
election petitioner and the respondent-returned
candidate were the only two contesting candidates for
the post of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti.
With the disqualification of the respondent-returned
candidate having been affirmed, no other contestant
except the appellant-election petitioner remained in
fray for the post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti, as only the respondent-returned candidate
and the appellant-election petitioner had contested
the said election.
24. It is noteworthy that the elections were held way
back in the year 2022. The process of adjudication of
the election petition, the appeal and the writ petition
consumed more than 3 years. Thus, in our opinion,
if at this stage, the appellant-election petitioner is
deprived of the fruits of her successful challenge to
13
the election of the respondent-returned candidate, by
asking her to contest a fresh election, that would
amount to a travesty of justice.
25. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the declaration made by the Election Tribunal,
to the effect that the appellant-election petitioner was
duly elected as the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti and directing her appointment to
the said post is just, legal and equitable. The Election
Appellate Tribunal fell into clear error in reversing the
said declaration on the premise that other members
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti should be given an
opportunity to contest for the post of Chairman. The
High Court too, erred in affirming the judgment of the
Election Appellate Tribunal to that extent.
26. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that,
for election to the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, only the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
had contested and hence setting aside of the
declaration issued by the Election Tribunal in favour
of the appellant-election petitioner on the premise
that an opportunity should be given to other
14
members of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, was wholly
unwarranted and uncalled for.
IV. CONCLUSION
27. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated
rd
3 February, 2025 passed by the Election Appellate
th
Tribunal, and the judgment dated 15 December,
2025 passed by the High Court, to the extent that the
appellant-election petitioner has been deprived of the
consequential declaratory relief of being elected as
the Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, are
hereby set aside.
28. Resultantly, the direction issued by the Election
Appellate Tribunal declaring a casual vacancy for the
post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti is
also set aside. The direction given by the Election
Tribunal declaring the appellant-election petitioner
elected to the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti is restored. Consequential steps for
compliance be taken within two weeks from today.
29. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Cost made
easy.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
15
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 3528 OF 2026
31. In view of the findings recorded by us by
allowing Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026,
the special leave petition preferred by the petitioner
herein fails and is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...……………………. J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
16
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 4129 of 2026)
RAMADEBI RAUTRAY ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 3528 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026
1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal by special leave arises from
th
the common judgment and order dated 15
December, 2025 passed by the High Court of Orissa
1
at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 filed by the
2
appellant, Ramadebi Rautray , and W.P.(C) No. 5196
3
of 2025, filed by the respondent, Basanti Sahoo ,
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-election petitioner”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as the “respondent-returned candidate”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.16
19:26:48 IST
Reason:
1
whereby the High Court dismissed both the writ
petitions and upheld the order of the Court of the
st 4
learned 1 Additional District Judge, Puri ,
disqualifying the respondent-returned candidate
from the post of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat as well as of Chairman
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti and directing re-
election for the said post.
I. BRIEF FACTS
3. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for
the disposal of the appeal are as below.
4. The appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate contested the
elections for the post of Panchayat Samiti Member,
Delang Kothabad Gram Panchayat, and Harirajpur
Gram Panchayat, respectively, in the year 2022. Both
were duly elected as members from their respective
constituencies.
5. Pursuant to being elected as members of
Panchayat Samitis, both the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
contested the election for the post of Chairman of the
4
Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Appellate Tribunal”.
2
Delang Panchayat Samiti. It is important to note here
that the appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate were the only two
contestants for the post of Chairman. The
respondent-returned candidate was declared elected,
whereas the appellant-election petitioner lost the
election for the post of Chairman.
6. The appellant-election petitioner instituted
Election Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022 before the learned
5
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili challenging the
election of respondent-returned candidate as the
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti, on the ground that she was disqualified from
contesting the said election, as she had given birth to
a third child after the cut-off date and hence, she was
barred from contesting the election to the post of
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat in view of the embargo contained in
Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act,
6
1959 .
5
Hereinafter, referred to as the “Election Tribunal”.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as the “1959 Act”.
3
7. In the proceedings before the Election Tribunal,
the appellant-election petitioner examined herself as
PW-1, and two more witnesses were examined in
support of her case. Ten documents were produced
and exhibited in order to substantiate the plea that
the respondent-returned candidate stood disqualified
on the ground of having a third child born to her after
the cut-off date. The respondent-returned candidate,
despite being afforded ample opportunities, neither
cross-examined the appellant-election petitioner and
her witnesses, nor did she lead any evidence in her
own defense. Consequently, the evidence of the
appellant-election petitioner remained
uncontroverted.
8. The election petition was allowed by the Election
Tribunal, declaring the election of the respondent-
returned candidate as Panchayat Samiti Member,
Harirajpur Gram Panchayat to be invalid and as a
consequence, her election to the post of Chairman of
the Delang Panchayat Samiti was also declared to be
void.
9. The Election Tribunal also passed a
consequential order in favour of the appellant-
election petitioner and declared her to be the
4
Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, being the
candidate who secured next highest number of votes.
The competent authority was accordingly directed to
fill up the post of the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti by appointing the appellant-
election petitioner to the said post.
10. Being aggrieved, the respondent-returned
candidate preferred Election Appeal No.10/3 of 2024
before the Election Appellate Tribunal. The said
appeal was disposed of by upholding the declaration
of the Election Tribunal that the election of the
respondent-returned candidate as Panchayat Samiti
Member of the Harirajpur Gram Panchayat was
invalid. However, the consequential declaration made
in favour of the appellant-election petitioner directing
her appointment as the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, was set aside. The Election
Appellate Tribunal accordingly directed fresh election
for the said post.
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Election
Appellate Tribunal, both the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
5
7
filed writ petitions before the High Court. The
appellant-election petitioner challenged the direction
for fresh election to the post of Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti, whereas the respondent-
returned candidate assailed the finding whereby she
had been disqualified from holding the office of
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and that of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment, dismissed both the writ petitions and
upheld the judgment of the Election Appellate
Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, both the appellant and
the respondent are before this Court by way of
separate special leave petitions.
II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED
12. Shri Umakant Misra, learned counsel
representing the appellant-election petitioner, urged
that the plea taken by the respondent-returned
candidate that she was not granted an opportunity to
defend herself is wholly unfounded. He referred to the
findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the High Court
7
W.P. (C) No. 5565 of 2025 (filed by appellant-election petitioner); W.P.(C)
No. 5196 of 2025 (filed by respondent-returned candidate).
6
judgment, wherein reference has been made to the
proceeding sheets of the Election Tribunal, and
submitted that ample opportunities had been
provided to the respondent-returned candidate to
contest the case and to cross-examine the witnesses.
However, she did not avail of such opportunities and
her endeavour was aimed at delaying the disposal of
the election petition.
13. He further submitted that the evidence of the
appellant-election petitioner, examined as PW-1, was
not completed on a single day but was deferred on
several dates at the request of the respondent-
returned candidate. However, when cross-
examination was not conducted and the proceedings
were sought to be lingered on, the cross-examination
was closed by the Election Tribunal. The order
closing cross-examination of the witnesses was never
challenged thereafter and has thus attained finality.
Similar was the situation for the other witnesses
examined by the appellant-election petitioner. Thus,
the case set up by the appellant-election petitioner
seeking disqualification of the respondent-returned
candidate on the ground of having a third child born
to her after the cut-off date remained uncontroverted
7
leading to the inevitable consequence of voiding of
respondent-returned candidate election as
Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur Gram
Panchayat and consequently as Chairman of the
Delang Panchayat Samiti.
14. Shri Misra further submitted that the Election
Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into
grave error in denying the consequential relief of
appointment to the post of Chairman to the
appellant-election petitioner. He urged that Section
45(1)(v) of the 1959 Act, which provides for
disqualification on the ground of having more than
two children, once attracted, renders the returned
candidate statutorily disqualified from holding the
office. It was urged that where a returned candidate
suffers from such a statutory disqualification, the
election petitioner is entitled as of right to seek
setting aside of the election of the disqualified
candidate along with consequential reliefs flowing
therefrom. He further urged that the provisions of the
1959 Act, more particularly, Sections 44-E and 44-J
aim to provide an effective and meaningful remedy in
election disputes so as to avoid unnecessary elections
where the outcome is effectively determinable on the
8
basis of the votes already polled. In the present case,
only the appellant-election petitioner and the
respondent-returned candidate contested the
election for the post of Chairman. He thus contended
that once the election of the respondent-returned
candidate was set aside, the only permissible and
natural consequence was to declare the appellant-
election petitioner elected to the post of Chairman, as
she had secured the next highest number of valid
votes.
15.
Per contra, Shri Kedar Nath Tripathy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-returned
candidate, vehemently and fervently contended that:
(i) the Election Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to
try the election petition filed by the appellant-election
petitioner; and (ii) the respondent-returned candidate
was not afforded adequate opportunity to contest the
election petition and to adduce evidence in her
defense.
16. He further submitted that, as a matter of fact,
only one child was born to the respondent-returned
candidate, whereas the other two children were born
from her husband’s first marriage and thus, she was
9
wrongly and unjustly declared disqualified from the
posts.
III. ANALYSIS
17. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the impugned orders.
18. The issue of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal
was not seriously contested by the respondent-
returned candidate on any valid legal ground and
thus, the same does not merit consideration.
19. So far as the decision of the Election Tribunal, as
affirmed by the Election Appellate Tribunal and the
High Court, disqualifying the respondent-returned
candidate is concerned, the same does not require
any interference whatsoever, because manifestly,
from the material available on record, it is clear that
the respondent-returned candidate failed to cross-
examine the appellant-election petitioner and her
witnesses, despite ample opportunities having been
granted to her.
20. It is apparent that, by avoiding cross-
examination of the witnesses, the respondent-
returned candidate was attempting to buy time and
10
defer the inevitable consequence i.e., declaration of
her election as Panchayat Samiti Member, Harirajpur
Gram Panchayat, invalid on account of the
disqualification contained in Section 45(1)(v) of the
1959 Act. The appellant-election petitioner having led
clinching evidence (which remained uncontroverted)
of facts necessary to prove such disqualification, the
necessary consequence was the disqualification of
the respondent-returned candidate. Hence, the three
concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal, Election
Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court on this aspect
require no interference of this Court.
21. Insofar as the claim of the appellant-election
petitioner for the post of Chairman is concerned,
reference may be gainfully made to Sections 44-E and
44-J of the 1959 Act, which read as follows:
“Section 44-E. Relief that may be claimed by
the petitioner. –
A petitioner may, in addition to
claiming a declaration that the
election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void, claim a further
declaration that he himself or any
other candidate, has been duly
elected.
Section 44-J. Decision of Civil Judge (Senior
Division). –
11
(1) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
after making such enquiry, as he
deems necessary, finds in respect of
any person whose election is called in
question by a petition that his election
was valid, he shall dismiss the petition
as against such person and may award
costs at his discretion.
(2) If the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
finds that the election of any person
was invalid, it shall either-
(a) declare that a casual vacancy
to have been created; or
(b) declare another candidate to
have been duly elected;
whichever course appears, in the
circumstances of the case to be more
appropriate and in either case, may
award costs at his discretion.
(3) In the event of the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) declaring a casual
vacancy to have been created, it shall
direct the Collector of the district or
such other authority prescribed in this
behalf to take proceedings for filling the
vacancy.
(4) All orders of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) shall, subject to any order
passed in an appeal, if any, be final
and conclusive:”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. A plain reading of Sections 44-E and 44-J of the
1959 Act makes it amply clear that the former
provision permits the election petitioner to claim
relief not only for having the election of the returned
12
candidate declared invalid, but also for declaring the
election petitioner duly elected to the post. The latter
provision, i.e., Section 44-J(2)(b), confers jurisdiction
upon the Civil Judge/Election Tribunal to declare
any other candidate as duly elected in cases where
the election of the originally returned candidate is
found to be invalid.
23. Indisputably, in the present case, the appellant-
election petitioner and the respondent-returned
candidate were the only two contesting candidates for
the post of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti.
With the disqualification of the respondent-returned
candidate having been affirmed, no other contestant
except the appellant-election petitioner remained in
fray for the post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat
Samiti, as only the respondent-returned candidate
and the appellant-election petitioner had contested
the said election.
24. It is noteworthy that the elections were held way
back in the year 2022. The process of adjudication of
the election petition, the appeal and the writ petition
consumed more than 3 years. Thus, in our opinion,
if at this stage, the appellant-election petitioner is
deprived of the fruits of her successful challenge to
13
the election of the respondent-returned candidate, by
asking her to contest a fresh election, that would
amount to a travesty of justice.
25. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the declaration made by the Election Tribunal,
to the effect that the appellant-election petitioner was
duly elected as the Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti and directing her appointment to
the said post is just, legal and equitable. The Election
Appellate Tribunal fell into clear error in reversing the
said declaration on the premise that other members
of the Delang Panchayat Samiti should be given an
opportunity to contest for the post of Chairman. The
High Court too, erred in affirming the judgment of the
Election Appellate Tribunal to that extent.
26. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that,
for election to the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti, only the appellant-election
petitioner and the respondent-returned candidate
had contested and hence setting aside of the
declaration issued by the Election Tribunal in favour
of the appellant-election petitioner on the premise
that an opportunity should be given to other
14
members of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, was wholly
unwarranted and uncalled for.
IV. CONCLUSION
27. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated
rd
3 February, 2025 passed by the Election Appellate
th
Tribunal, and the judgment dated 15 December,
2025 passed by the High Court, to the extent that the
appellant-election petitioner has been deprived of the
consequential declaratory relief of being elected as
the Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti, are
hereby set aside.
28. Resultantly, the direction issued by the Election
Appellate Tribunal declaring a casual vacancy for the
post of Chairman of the Delang Panchayat Samiti is
also set aside. The direction given by the Election
Tribunal declaring the appellant-election petitioner
elected to the post of Chairman of the Delang
Panchayat Samiti is restored. Consequential steps for
compliance be taken within two weeks from today.
29. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Cost made
easy.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
15
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 3528 OF 2026
31. In view of the findings recorded by us by
allowing Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 4129 of 2026,
the special leave petition preferred by the petitioner
herein fails and is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...……………………. J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
16