The Orissa High Court on Thursday 27 February dismissed an election petition challenging the 2024 victory of Sukinda MLA Pradeep Bal Samant, holding that the plea did not disclose the “material facts” required under election law.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra allowed an application filed by the returned candidate and rejected the petition at the threshold, without sending the matter to trial.
Background of the Case
The election petition was filed by Pritiranjan Gharai, who had contested from the 54-Sukinda Assembly Constituency in the 2024 Odisha Assembly elections. Samant was declared elected with a margin of 9,577 votes.
Gharai alleged two main grounds. First, that the MLA had failed to disclose two pending cases under the Payment of Wages Act in his nomination affidavit (Form-26). Second, that he had falsely declared his educational qualification as having passed the High School Certificate examination under the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha.
In response, Samant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking outright rejection of the petition on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action.
At the outset, the petitioner argued that the rejection application was filed late and was intended to delay the trial.
However, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including R.K. Roja and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable, to hold that a plea for rejection can be considered at any stage before trial.
“The Court is duty-bound to decide such an application before proceeding further,” Justice Mishra noted, rejecting the objection on delay.
The petitioner argued that two pending cases before a JMFC court had not been disclosed in Form-26, thereby affecting voters’ right to make an informed choice.
But the Court examined Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It noted that disclosure is mandatory only for offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, where charges have been framed.
After referring to Section 20 of the Payment of Wages Act, the Court observed that the offences cited were punishable mainly with fine and did not meet the statutory threshold.
“Even if the cases were pending, they would not fall within the category mandatorily required to be disclosed,” the bench held.
The Court also found that the petition lacked specific facts showing how the alleged omission materially affected the election result.
The second ground related to the respondent’s declaration that he had passed the HSC examination. The petitioner claimed this statement was false and misleading.
However, the Court found the pleadings vague. There was no reference to any official record, certificate, or communication from the education board to support the claim.
“The allegation appears to be based on hearsay,” the judgment noted, adding that election petitions must contain clear foundational facts and cannot rely on suspicion.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hari Shankar Jain, the Court reiterated that omission of even a single material fact can be fatal.
“Merely quoting statutory language does not amount to stating material facts,” the Court observed.
After examining both grounds, the Court concluded that the petition failed to disclose the essential facts needed to establish a valid cause of action under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act.
“The allegations are sweeping and general in nature, lacking any clear indication as to how the result of the election was materially affected,” Justice Mishra held.
Accordingly, the interlocutory application was allowed, and the election petition was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
The Court directed that the substance of the order be communicated to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly in accordance with law.
Case Title: Pritiranjan Gharai v. Pradeep Bal Samant
Case Number: I.A. No. 51 of 2025 (arising out of ELPET No. 6 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
