Holding

When a returned candidate is disqualified leaving only one duly nominated candidate, the court may, under Section 38(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, declare that candidate duly elected, and the precise wording of the relief clause is not fatal to granting such relief.

Summary

In the Pondosguda Gram Panchayat election for Sarpanch, the respondent was declared elected but was later found disqualified under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act for having more than two children. The appellant filed an election petition seeking to have the respondent's election declared void and to be declared the sole duly nominated candidate. The Munsif set aside the respondent's election and declared the appellant elected as the only remaining candidate under Section 38(2) of the Act. The High Court upheld the disqualification but ordered a re‑election, holding that the relief clause did not expressly ask for the appellant’s election. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that procedural statutes must be liberally construed and that the Munsif was correct to declare the appellant elected, as the relief sought was evident despite the wording. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the Munsif’s order restored with costs.

Issues considered

The effect of a disqualification of a returned candidate on the election outcome when only one candidate remains.
Whether the relief clause of an election petition must expressly state a declaration of election for the petitioner to be granted that relief.
Whether procedural provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act should be interpreted strictly or liberally in election petitions.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951

Subjects

Panchayat electionDisqualificationElection petitionProcedural interpretationRelief clauseSection 38Single candidateRe‑electionLiberal construction

Judgment

A RUPADHAR PUJARI
v.
GANGADHAR BHATRA

OCTOBER 5, 2004

B [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 BHATRA 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 B

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
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 Orissa High
~
Court in W.A. No. 4856 of 2003.

B Sibo Sankar Mishra and N.K. Neeraj for the Appellant.

Janaranjana Das, Swetaketu Mishra and Ms. Moushumi Gahlot for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. Leave granted.

Election to the office of Sarpanch, Pondosguda Gram Panchayat, Orissa
was held in the month of February 2002 under the provisions of The Orissa
Grama Panchayats Act 1964 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). There were
D eight candidates out of whom six withdrew from the contest leaving only the
petitioner and the respondent in the election fiay. The polling took place on
21.2.2002. On 28.2.2002, the respondent was declared elected.

The respondent's election was put in issue by the appellant by filing an
election petition under Sections 30/31 of the Act in the Court of Munsif
E having jurisdiction to try the petition. The relief clause in the petition is
relevant as the controversy centres around it and hence is reproduced
hereunder:-"

"The Petitioner, therefore, prays the Hon'ble Court to be pleased <

to declare that the election of opposite party is invalid and declare the
F Petitioner as the only duly nominated candidate for the office of
Sarpanch Pondosoguda in 2002 Gram Panchayat Election, in alternate
declare a casual vacancy to have been created in the office of Sarpanch
Pondosoguda GP and direct the Collector Koraput/such concerned
authority to take proceeding to fill up the vacancy, award, the c9st of
G the case and give such further relief/relief which the court deem fit
and proper under the law in the interest of justice."

(emphasis supplied)
,.
..,,
The learned Munsif found that the respondent was disqualified from
contesting the election- as he had more than two children on the date of his
H
RUPADHAR PU.JAR! v. GANGADHAR BHATRA [LAHOTI, CJ.] 89
_ ....
nomination, a disqualification within the meaning of clause (v) of sub-section A
(1) of Section 25 of the Act. In view of that finding, the learned Munsif
allowed the election petition, set aside the respondent's election and further
declared that "Rupadhar Pujari being the single candidate has been duly
elected to the post of Sarpanch of Pondosguda Gram Panchayat".

The respondent preferred the writ petition in the High Court. The High B
Court has upheld the finding of the learned Munsif that the respondent was
disqualified from being elected. However, the High Court has further held
that in the relief clause of the election petition filed by the appellant he had
not sought for any relief to declare him elected. Allowing the writ petition,
the High Court, while upholding the setting aside of the election of the C
respondent, substituted the consequential direction in place of the one given
by the learned Munsif and directed that it would be open to the authorities
to proceed in accordance with law, i.e. by holding a re-election. Aggrieved
by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by
special leave.
D
Sections 34, 40 and sub-sections ( l) and (2) of Section 38 of the Act,
which are relevant for our purpose, provide as under:-"

34. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner - A petitioner,
may, in addition to claiming a cteclaration that the election of all or
any of the returned candidates is void claim a further declaration that E
he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.

40. Grounds for which a candidate other than the nturned
candidate may be declared to have been elected - If any person who
has lodged a petition, has in addition to calling in question the election
of the returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or F
any other candidate has been duly elected and the Muns if is of opinion

(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a
majority of the valid votes; or

(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by G
a corrupt practice the petitioner or such other candidate would have
obtained a majority of the valid votes;

38. Decision of Munsif - (1) If the Munsif 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, H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A he shall dismiss the petition as against such person and may award
costs at his discretion.

(2) If the Munsif finds that the election of any person was invalid,
he shall either

(a) declare a casual vacancy to have been created; or
B
(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 athis discretion.

c xxx xxx xxx xxx"

The scheme of the fore-quoted provisions reveals that in an election
petition the petitioner obviously lays challenge to the election of the returned
candidate or candidates and while doing so he can claim a further declaration,
consequent upon the election of the returned candidate or candidates having
D been annulled and avoided, that he himself or any other candidate has been
duly elected. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 confi::rs jurisdiction on the Munsif
to declare a casual vacancy to have been created in view of the election of
any returned candidate having been invalidated. Equally, the Munsif has
jurisdiction to declare any other candidate to have been duly elected. Which
E of the two alternate powers vesting in the Munsif shall be exercised depends
on his forming an opinion as to which of the two reliefs would be more
appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Applicability'of Section 40 of
the Act is attracted when looking to the nature of the case an enquiry is called
for into the validity of votes so as to find out whether the petitioner or some
other candidate would have received the majority of the valid votes. Depending
·F on such finding such other candidate may be declared to have been duly
elected over and above the declaration that the election of the returned
candidate was void.

True it is that the relief clause in the election petition in the present
case is not very happily worded. The election petitioner would have been
G better advised to specifically seek a declaration to the effect that he was
elected. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that Panchayat elections
are part of Gram Swaraj system. Most of the provisions relating to election
and election petitions in the laws governing Panchayats are pari materia with
the provisions contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Yet
H ·the procedural laws relating to Panchayat elections and election petitions
RUPADHAR PUJARI v. GANGADHAR BHATRA [LAHOTI, CJ.] 91

cannot be allowed to be interpreted with too much of rigidity and by indulging A
in hair-splitting. A recent decision by a Constitution Bench in Sardar Amarjit
Singh Katra (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs.
and Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 272, once again reminds us to remember that Jaws
of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of
doing substantive and real justice. Procedural laws must be liberally construed J3
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.

In the case at hand, there were only two candidates in the election fray.
c
The respondent, though declared elected, was found by the learned Munsif
to have been disqualified from contesting the election. He was, therefore,
excluded from the contest. Deemingly there was only one candidate left, i.e.
the appellant, and he was the only duly nominated candidate. There was no
need to go for polling. Once he was found to be the only duly nominated D
candidate then he alone was to be declared elected. 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 such relief to which he is found. entitled on the facts established,
simply because the relief clause is not very happily worded. The learned E
Munsifwas, therefore, 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
Act consequent upon the election of the respondent, i.e. the only other
candidate having been invalidated. In substance that was the relief which the
election petitioner had sought for. The High Court has erred in interfering F
with and setting. aside the well merited relief granted by the learned Munsif
to the appellant herein.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the
High Court is set aside and that of the learned Munsif is restored with costs
throughout. G

N.J. Appeal dismissed.