RUPADHAR PUJARI versus GANGADHAR BHATRA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 05-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RUPADHAR PUJARI 
v. 
GANGADHAR BHATRA 
OCTOBER 5, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ.,'_G.P. MATHUR AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR 
· NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Paiichayat Elections: 
C 
Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964-Sections 34 and 38~ 
Disqualification of returned candidate from being elected to the post and 
defeated candidate declared elected being single candidate by Munsif-High 
Court upheld disqualification of returned candidate but ordered re-election 
since in the election petition defeated candidate did not specifically seek a 
D declaration to the effect that he was elected-On appeal, held: Defeated 
candidate being the only nominated candidate, his declaration as duly elected 
was natural, obvious and inevitable consequence and there was no need for 
re-election-Further, the candidate should not be denied such relief to which 
he was found entitled on facts established, because relief clause was not 
clearly worded-Hence, order of High Court set aside and that of Munsif 
E restored 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Procedural Laws-Relating to Panchayat elections and election petitions 
Interpretation of-Held: Procedural laws cannot be interpreted with too much 
F rigidity-They are to be liberally construed to make them workable and advance 
ends ofjustice-Further, technical objections which defeat and deny substantial 
effective justice cannot be approved, except where the mandate of the law 
inevitably necessitates it. 
Gram Panchayat election for the office of Sarpanch was held. 
G Respondent was declared elected. Appellant, the only defeated candidate, 
challenged the election of the respondent-returned candidate seeking 
declaration to the effect that the election of respondent is invalid and 
declare appellant as the only duly nominated candidate. The Munsif set 
aside the election of the respondent on account of disqualification and 
H 
86 
RUPADHAR PU.TARI v. GANGADHAR BHA TRA 
87 
declared appellant being single candidate as duly elected to the post. The A 
High Court upheld the setting aside of the respondent's election, however, 
directed the authorities to hold re-election since in the relief clause 
appellant had not sought any relief to declare him elected. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD. 1.1. Procedural laws relating to Panchayat elections and 
election petitions cannot be allowed to be interpreted with too much of 
rigidity and by indulging in hair-splitting. Laws of procedure are meant 
B 
to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantive and C 
real justice. Procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve 
as handmaid of justice, make them workable and advance the ends of 
justice. Technical objections which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat 
and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly viewed for 
being discouraged, except where the mandate of the law inevitably 
necessitates it. (90-H; 91-A, BJ 
D 
Sardar Amarjit Singh Katra (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Pramod Gupta 
(Smt) (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., (2003) 3 ~CC 272, referred to. 
1.3. In the instant case, respondent was disqualified from being 
elected. Deemingly there was only one candidate left, i.e. the appellant. E 
Once he was found to be the only .duly nominated candidate then he alone 
was to be declared elected and the constituency was not required to go to 
polls at all. The declaration of the appellant as duly elected candidate is 
the natural, obvious and inevitable consequence of his being the only duly 
nominated candidate. Ordinary, a plaintiff or petitioner should not be 
denied relief to the effect that he be declared elected, to which he is found F 
entitled on the facts established, simply because the relief clause in the 
election petition is not very happily worded. Therefore, the Munsif was 
right in declaring the appellant as the one duly elected in exercise of the 
powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of Section 38 of the Orissa Grama 
Panchayats Act, 1964 consequent upon the election of the respondent, i.e. G 
the only other candidate having been invalidated. In substance that was 
the relief which the election petitioner had sought for. Thus, High Court 
has erred in interfering with and setting aside the well merited relief 
granted by the Munsif to the appellant. (91-C, D, E, F[ 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6507 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.2004 of the Oriss

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