Cuttack, Aug. 11: The Election Commission of India has decided to keep the counsels for the state government out of the legal battle in chief minister Naveen Patnaik's "incorrect" affidavit case.
This became apparent when advocate Anjana Gosain of Delhi High Court filed before Orissa High Court yesterday an authorisation by Election Commission of India (ECI) to represent it along with the chief electoral officer (Odisha) and district election officer (Ganjam).
The court was hearing the petition filed by Devananda Mohapatra, the BJP candidate who lost to Naveen from Hinjili Assembly constituency in 2014, seeking intervention of the high court for disqualification of the chief minister for the "incorrect" affidavit.
The "incorrect" affidavit referred to the statement of accounts and expenses submitted by Naveen to the ECI after the 2014 general Assembly elections. Earlier, the advocate-general of Odisha had represented the district election officer (Ganjam) in a petition filed by him seeking recall of the notice issued to ECI on a petition filed by Bhubaneswar RTI activist Subash Mohapatra for intervention against alleged inaction of ECI on a complaint demanding disqualification of Naveen as MLA for certain incongruity in the affidavit. The court had, on July 31, fixed September 6 for further hearing on the case.
Senior advocate Pitambar Acharya, appearing for Devananda, argued that the notice be issued to Naveen Patnaik (named as opposite party No. 4) as his election is in question and the ECI had been moved to take appropriate action under the Representation of People Act, 1951, for the "incorrect" affidavit.
Appearing for the ECI, Gosain pointed out that a similar matter (Subash's petition) was before the same court that had already framed the questions to be determined by the court, asked the election commission to respond to it and directed the case to be listed on September 6.
After hearing both sides, Justice S.K. Mishra observed: "Having considered the rival submissions, this court is of the opinion that since the matter relates to election of representative of people, a hasty decision should not be taken in the interest of justice. The court should hear all the parties concerned and then pass order. Since the maintainability of similar petition is in question in the connected writ petition, the matter should be listed along with that writ petition."
"Accordingly, list this matter on September 6 along with the other petition," yesterday's order said.
