LexDHIRENDRA PANDUA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 714
DHIRENDRA PANDUA
V.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
01issa Municipality Act, 1950:
s.38 - Election petition under - Limitation - Held: No
C period of limitation prescribed for presentation of petition un-
der s.38 to District Judge.
s.16{1)(iv) and s.17(1)(b) - Disqualification of leprosy
patient from contesting to post of Councillor in municipality or
0
continuing as such after election - Reasonableness of such
classification - Held: Said classification bear reasonable and
just relation with the object sought to be achieved by statute
and cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary- S. 16(1 )(iv)
and 17(1)(b) not violative of Art.14 of Constitution - However,
E keeping in view present thinking ar.d researches carried on
leprosy as also on tuberculosis, and with professional input,
legislature may seriously consider necessity to retain such
provisions in the statutes - Constitution of India, 1950 - Ar-
ticle 14 - Class legislation.
F
s.16(1)(iv) and s.17(1)(b)- Disqualification to hold office
as Councillor- Courts below held that at relevant time, elected
Council/or was not fully cured of leprosy - Justification of -
Held: ,Justified - Councillor's own showing on record that he
had doubts about the reactivation of the disease and had to
G approach District court for appropriate directions to concerned
authorities for providing adequate facilities for periodical
checks and issue of fitness certificate.
Public health: Leprosy - What is.
H
714
-J
DHIRENDRA PANDUA v. STATE OF
715
ORISSA AND ORS.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Re-apprecia-
A
tion of evidence - Scope of.
The appellant and the complainant-respondent no.3
were elected as Councillors of two different municipal
}
wards. Subsequently, the appellant was also elected as
the Chairperson of the Municipal Council. The complain-
B
ant filed an election petition under s.38 of the Orissa Mu-
nicipal Act, 1950 questioning the election of the appellant
as Councillor and Chairperson oh the ground that being
a leprosy patient, he had incurred disqualification under
s.16(1)(iv) and s.17(1)(b) of the Act and therefore could not c
continue as such.
Appellant contested the petition on the ground that
on the date of election, he was fully cured of the ailment,
. ....,
and was thlis qualified to contest the election and that D
the petition was barred by limitation. Election Tribunal held
that the petition was not barred by limitation and that on
the date of filing of his nomination and election to the of-
fice of Councillor, the appellant was a leprosy patient and
his status as a patient continued as there was no finality E
of the medical opinion that he was fully cured of the dis-
ease, thus appellant was disqualified under s.16(1 )(iv) and
s. 17(1 )(b) of the Act, to be elected and to continue as
Councillor of the Municipality. High Court affirmed the .
order of Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A conjoint reading of s.18 and s.38 of the
Orissa Municipality Act makes it clear that the two sec-
tions operate in two independent fields. The scope of s.18
is limited as compared to s.38. An election dispute under G
s.18 can be raised only by a candidate who was contest-
ing against the Councillor whose election had been chal-
lenged or by a minimum of 25 electors of the same ward,
within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of
the election whereas under s.38, any elected Councillor H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A of the Municipality, irrespective of his constituency or the
Chairperson, at the request of the Municipality can
present a petition to the District Judge of the District to
determine the question whether or not the person com-
plained against has incurred disqualification on any of
B the grounds enumerated in ss.16 or 17 of the Act. S.38 is
wider in scope inasmuch as the issue of disqui;ilification
of a Councillor can be raised not only on the grounds
mentioned in s.17 i.e. on the grounds which come into
existence after the person is elected as a Councillor, but
C also on the grounds mentioned in s.16, i.e. on the grounds
which had made him ineligible for election while he was a
candidate i.e. before he came to be elected as a Council-
lor. It is, therefore, manifest that when a question with re-
gExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.