Adjudicating Authority Must Record Specific Findings on Veracity of Public Documents Rebutting Statutory Disqualification

The Petitioner, the Sarpanch of Dagra Gram Panchayat, challenged an order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Collector, Balasore (Opposite Party No. 2), which declared his election void

The disqualification was based on a petition by Opposite Party No. 5 alleging the Petitioner had four children, three of whom were born after the statutory cut-off date of 21.04.1995

This was the second round of litigation; previously, the High Court had set aside a similar disqualification order on 01.10.2024, directing a fresh hearing because the Collector failed to consider the Petitioner’s defense

In the fresh proceedings, the Collector again disqualified the Petitioner, primarily relying on pre-2007 documents (birth registers, school admissions, and LIC bonds) while dismissing the Petitioner’s counter-evidence (Aadhaar cards and HSC certificates) as being post-2007 fabrications

1. Whether the Collector's order declaring the Petitioner's election void was based on a manifest non-application of mind and a failure to consider evidence in the public domain

2. Whether the parentage of the children (Pankaj and Itishree Mohanty) was correctly established for the purpose of disqualification under the 1964 Act

The court primarily applied Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, which disqualifies any person from being elected or nominated as a Sarpanch if they have more than two children, provided that any additional child born after the cut-off date of 21.04.1995 (one year from the commencement of the 1994 Amendment Act) triggers the disqualification

The court also relied on the principle that documents in the public domain, such as Aadhaar cards and Board of Secondary Education certificates, carry prima facie probative value in establishing identity and parentage until legally cancelled or disproved

The Court found that the Collector erred by summarily rejecting the Petitioner’s documents simply because they were issued post-2007

The Court reasoned that the Collector failed to explain why high-value public documents like Aadhaar cards—which the administration had not sought to cancel—were ignored in favor of the Election Petitioner’s claims

The Court noted that the central "bone of contention" was the paternity of the children, which required a more rigorous adjudication of the competing evidence rather than a mere preference for older records

It remanded the matter to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore, for fresh adjudication; the Collector was directed to record specific findings on the probative value of the documents in the public domain and was empowered to take lawful steps to definitively establish the parentage of the children

Both parties were ordered to appear before the Collector on 06.07.2026, with a mandate to conclude proceedings within six weeks thereafter