RENU BISOI AND ORS. versus GOUR CHANDRA PRADHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 16-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RENU BISOI AND ORS. 
v. 
GOUR CHANDRA PRADHAN AND ORS. 
JULY 16, 1999 
B 
[B.N. KIRPAL ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991. 
S.36-0ath of allegiance by elected members of Zilla Parishad-To be 
C taken within three-months of holding office or at one of first three meetings 
of Parishad whichever is later-some of the members could not take oath at 
first and second meetings-They were present at third meeting which was 
adjourned after co.ndolence resolution was passed-When notice was sent for 
a meeting on next date, a dispute arose as to whether oath could be 
administered to the members-High Court opined against the members-
D Held, High Court erred in concluding that provisions of s.36 got attracted-
Members were not at fault as they were present at the third meeting which 
stood adjourned-At the adjourned meeting they were prevented from taking 
oath-Collector would administer oath to appellant-members. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Orissa High Court in 
0.1.C. 18371 of 1997 .. 
p 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellants. 
B.B. Ratho, (Ms. Shashindra Tripathi) for Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, 
Jayant Das, General for the State of Orissa and Radha Shyam Jena for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is 
whether the appellants, who had been elected as the members of the Zilla 
H Parishad, cease to hold office for the reason that they had not taken the oath 
904 
-. 
.RENU BISOI v. G.C. PRADHAN 
905 
of allegianse,as_ contemplated by Section 36 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act A 
-(for short 'the Act'). 
The brief facts are that a election to the said Zilla Parishad took place 
and the results were declared on 29-1-1997. According to Secti!>n 36 of the 
Act the elected members, including the President and the Vice-President of 
the Parishad are required to take oath of a allegiance within three months of B 
the date with effect from which they hold office or at any one of the first three 
meetings of the Parishad, whichever is latter. If the oath is not taken then such 
person ceases to hold office. 
In the present case first meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1991. C 
According to the counter-affidavit of Shri S.K. Satpathi, Collector-cum-District 
Magistrate, Ganjam, filed in this Court 69 members were elected to the said 
- Zilla Parishad. On 15-2-1997, 36 members who came at 10.30 AM were 
administered oath. The said Collector waited for other members till l l .20 AM 
and after that time no oath was administered. At the said meeting the President -I) 
of the Parishad was elected. The second meeting took place on 25-2-1997. In 
the said meeting oath was administered to 26 members out of the 33 members 
who had come at 10.30 AM. The appellants on that date also came after 10.30 
AM and, therefore, oath was not administered ~Q them because by that time 
the District Magistrate had left the place of meeting. The third meeting was 
called on l-?-1997. The appellants were present at the time when the meeting E 
was called. It transpires that a condolence resolution was passed on account 
of the demise of Shri Biju Pattanaik and no oath was administered to the 
appellants. Notice was then sent for a meeting on 30-7-1997 where a dispute 
arose as to whether oath could be administered to the appellants. It was 
contended by some of the members that as the appellants had not taken oath p 
in the first, three me~tings, therefore, by virtue of Section 36 they had ceased 
to be thr members of the Zillas Parisahad. The District Collector wrote a letter 
dated 14th August, 1997 to the Secretary, State Election Commission in which, 
he inter alia, stated that the third meeting got adjourned after the condolence 
resolution of late Shri Biju Pattnaik. A clarification was sought frdm the 
Election Commission as to whether the appellants herein ceased to be the G 
members of Zilla Parishad. The Election Commission opined in favour of the 
ap~ellants. It is thereafter that a writ petition was filed in the High Court of 
Orissa by respondent No. I, inter alia, contending that by virtue of the 
provisions of Section 36 the appellants had ceased to hold office as they had 
not complied with the said provisions. 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.