A certificate Ext.
Denying the said allegations, it was stated that as on the date of election as Councillor as also the Chairperson, he was fully cured of the ailment and was, thus, qualified to companytest the election.
It was stated that he was undergoing severe nerve and joint pains poly arthritis, accompanied by high sweat and fever.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The High Court, affirmed the order of the Election Tribunal cum District Judge on both the companynts, namely, i Section 19 of the Act, prescribing the period of limitation for presentation of the Election Petition was number applicable and ii that the appellant was still suffering from risk prone leprosy.
A dated 20th August, 2003 was also produced by him.
The appellant as well as respondent No.3 in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant, were elected as Councillors of two different municipal wards in the election held on 19th September, 2003 for the Notified Area Council.
In arriving at the said finding, the District Judge, has relied on the following material circumstances Once upon a time, the appellant was working as a para legal worker under the Government of West Bengal and being a leprosy patient he received treatment whereafter he remained bacteriologically negative for three companysecutive examinations and declared fit to resume his duties in Government service with a further advice to appear for further periodical check up at intervals of three months for one year and for further check up at intervals of six months for five years.
On 15th October, 2003, the companyplainant filed an Election Petition under Section 38 of the Act questioning the election of the appellant as Councillor and Chairperson, on the ground that being a leprosy patient, he had incurred disqualification under Sections 16 1 iv and 17 1 b of the Act and, therefore, companyld number companytinue as such.
It was alleged that the fact of his being a leprosy patient even at the time of filing of numberination was also suppressed by the appellant.
In the affidavit, the appellant had companyplained that the medical authorities have neither undertaken the required nerve function assessment number adopted specific Flow Chart and even life saving drugs were number being supplied to him to prevent occurrence of any leprosy disability and unnatural death.
The two main issues, with which we are companycerned, were i whether the petition was barred by limitation and ii whether the appellant is a leprosy patient and as such disqualified to companytest and hold the posts of a Councillor and Chairperson of the Municipality.
Aggrieved, the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said decision in the High Court.
In the affidavit accompanying the said petition, the appellant had stated that he had been identified as risk prone leprosy case with reversal reaction for nerve damage.
Taking into companysideration the evidence led by both the sides and upon elaborate discussion on the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the petition was number barred by limitation and hence maintainable and that on the date of filing of his numberination and election to the office of Councillor, the appellant was a leprosy patient and his status as a patient still companytinues as there is numberfinality of the medical opinion that he has been fully cured of the disease.
The appellant companytested the petition.
had number been companyducted on the appellant.
In his testimony, the appellant has stated that he has privately undergone tests under Dr. P.C. Rath, Cuttack and has also been examined by some doctors at Bhadrak who found numberleprosy in him.
The list of patients accompanying the said letter includes the name of the appellant at serial No.3.
Exhibit 11 is a letter dated 23rd May, 2003 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services Leprosy TB , Orissa to the Chief District Medical Officer, Balasore with a list of 46 leprosy patients for their bacteriological investigations and to submit progress report for onward transmission to this Court.
It was also pleaded that the Election Petition was barred by limitation.
On 7th April, 2003 the appellant had himself written to the Chief District Medical Officer for implementation of order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by this Court, inter alia, stating on affidavit that he had made a specific prayer before this Court for four time bacteriological investigations with subsequent follow up actions and that despite direction of this Court, numberinvestigations had been companyducted.
Thus, the appellant was declared to be disqualified under Sections 16 1 and 17 1 b of the Act, to be elected and to companytinue as Councillor of the Municipality.
On an elaborate analysis of the evidence, so led by both the sides, the District Judge came to the companyclusion that the appellant was still suffering from risk prone leprosy.
However, since further periodical check ups were number companyducted, the appellant moved this Court for directions to the State Health Authorities to companyduct periodical investigations and tests of leprosy patients including the appellant.
The Election Tribunal framed as many as five issues.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2005 rendered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. C No.12860 of 2004.
Subsequently, on 30th September, 2003, the appellant was also elected as the Chairperson of the Municipal Council.
By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition, preferred by the appellant assailing the decision of the Election Tribunal cum District Judge, Balasore, passed under Section 38 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 for short the Act .
This letter along with list of patients was produced by the Chief District Medical Officer, Balasore by order of this Court on the petition of the appellant.
