AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Ms. Barik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client has challenged order dated 5th September, 2011 made by the Sub-Collector in rejecting her client’s appeal against issuance of residential certificate to opposite party no.3. She draws attention to voter list published in year 2011 in respect of village Mundhabania. She demonstrates, name of opposite party no.3 stands included in the list. She submits, husband of said opposite party is resident of village Mundhabania and therefore said opposite party’s matrimonial home is in that village. It is of no matter that her father’s house is in village Panisanda.
Ms. Patnayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate, for opposite party no.3.
It appears from impugned order that there was omission to enquire and deal with fact of opposite party no.3 having been included in voter list of 2011, in respect of village Mundhabania.
Mr. Agarwal prays for adjournment. It is granted as peremptory.
Opposite parties are put on notice that the omission is a defect in impugned order. It cannot be otherwise cured as per law declared in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.
List on 20th March, 2023 as prayed for by Mr. Agarwal.
…………………………………