Kiran Raj

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking the transfer of charge of the Champua Block Level Federation (BLF) to newly elected office bearers. The petitioners claimed to have been validly elected as President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Champua BLF but faced opposition from the previous office bearers, leading to a legal challenge. The court, upon examining the case, found that the election had not been conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures, resulting in its dismissal.

The dispute arose from an election conducted on January 21, 2023, when Opposite Party No. 8 issued a letter calling for the restructuring of the BLF in Champua Block. This restructuring was intended to ensure compliance with the guidelines set under Mission Shakti, a government initiative aimed at promoting self-help groups (SHGs).

The petitioners claimed that during this restructuring, they were elected as the new office bearers for Champua BLF. However, their appointment was contested by Opposite Party Nos. 13 to 15, who were the previous office bearers. These parties refused to transfer the charge, leading the petitioners to approach Opposite Party No. 8 for intervention.

The election was conducted under the supervision of the Block Development Officer (BDO), BPC-cum-BPM, Mission Shakti, Lady Supervisor representing the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), and PA-cum-BLC, Champua. The petitioners argued that the election was legitimate and conducted in compliance with the operational guidelines. However, the previous office bearers alleged procedural lapses and challenged the election's validity, arguing that it had not been conducted by a duly authorized election panel.

The petitioners further alleged financial mismanagement by the previous office bearers and sought to assume charge immediately. They claimed that they had already initiated the process of changing the signatories of the BLF bank account and were denied administrative access by Opposite Party Nos. 13 to 15. Despite formally requesting Opposite Party No. 8 to facilitate the transition, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court.

The petitioners asserted that they had been duly elected following the Mission Shakti Guidelines and that the election process was transparent. The previous office bearers (Opposite Party Nos. 13 to 15) unlawfully obstructed the transfer of charge, thereby causing administrative deadlock. The restructuring of BLF and election of Executive Committee members were mandated to be conducted every two years, a requirement that had been ignored by the previous leadership.

The court was urged to direct Opposite Party No. 8 to implement the transfer of charge and recognize their leadership. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 8 contended that the election was invalid as it was not conducted in accordance with the Operation Manual for SHG Federation. These manual mandates that the election panel must include the Deputy Collector, District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO), Block Development Officer (BDO), and Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). The election, held under the supervision of the then BDO and other local officials, lacked the required officials, rendering it procedurally defective. Opposite Party Nos. 13 to 15 argued that the election lacked statutory compliance and was therefore void.

The BDO, as per guidelines, did not have the authority to implement the transfer of charge, making the petitioners’ demand legally untenable.

The court examined the Operation Manual for SHG Federation, particularly Clause 3.4, which outlines the constitution of an election panel. It mandates the inclusion of:

• Deputy Collector
• DSWO
• Block Development Officer (BDO)
• Child Development Project Officer (CDPO)

The court noted that "in the present case, the election to the BLF was conducted by only the then BDO in presence of BPC-cum-BPM, Mission Shakti; Lady Supervisor on behalf of CDPO, Champua, PA-cum-BLC, Champua, and representatives of all GPLFs." The absence of key officials raised procedural concerns regarding the validity of the election.

The court referenced the Privy Council’s decision in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253), which established that "when a statute, while conferring power, prescribes the mode of exercise of that power, the power has to be exercised in that manner, or not at all." This principle was applied to determine that the election had not adhered to the prescribed statutory procedure, rendering it legally unsustainable.

Additionally, the court observed that Champua had been designated as a Notified Area Council (NAC) for the past five years, necessitating a restructuring of its administrative framework. However, the petitioners did not provide evidence that their election had been formally ratified by the competent authority. The court also noted that Opposite Party No. 8 had not taken a formal stance declaring the election invalid, nor had it taken steps to implement the transition, resulting in an administrative impasse.

Based on these findings, the court stated:

"In the aforesaid situation and circumstance, especially when the election of the petitioners having not been done in accordance with the provisions of the Operation Manual and no provision having been brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioners to show that their election has been ratified by the authority concerned, this Court does not consider it proper to issue any direction to OPNo.8 to hand over the charge of BLF to the petitioners."

The court held that the election of the petitioners was not conducted as per the SHG Federation's Operation Manual, and without proper ratification, no directive for the transfer of charge could be issued. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly.

Case Title: Mamata Rout & Ors v. State of Odisha & Ors
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 9853 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

[Read/Download order]