JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.03.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Dis¬trict Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in Election Appeal No.3 of 2008, wherein he allowed the appeal filed by opp. party No.2 challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi in Election Peti¬tion No.6 of 2007. 2. The fact necessary for disposal of the writ petition succinctly stated is that, petitioner and opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 contested for the office of Sarpanch in respect of Siali Gram Panchayat under Kasinagar Block in the District of Gajapati in the last Gram Panchayat election held on 21.02.2007. Opp. Party No.2 having secured highest number of votes, was declared elected. The writ petitioner filed Election petition No. 6 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi with prayer to declare the election of the returned candidate as null and void and to declare him as elected Sarpanch of Siali Gram Panchayat on several grounds including the ground that the returned candidate was unable to read and write Oriya language. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi allowed the petition holding that the returned candidate was unable to read and write Oriya and further directed the Election officer-cum-B.D.O., Kasinagar (opp. party No.4) to declare the petition¬er, Rokkam Ram Prasad as elected candidate for the office of Sar¬panch, if he had secured second position in the election fray. Being aggrieved with the said Judgment, the returned candidate preferred Election Appeal No.3 of 2008 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi, who allowed the appeal holding that the appellant (opp. party No.2) was able to read and write Oriya and consequentially upheld his election as Sarpanch of Siali Gram Panchayat. The respondent-election peti¬tioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the appellate Court’s judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as found from Ext. A, some words in Oriya language were dictated to opp. party No.2, but he could not write a single word correctly. He was also asked to read an Oriya manuscript, but failed to read the same. So, the Civil Judge held that opp. party No.2 was unable to read and write Oriya. The appellate Court erroneously negatived the said findings observing that, Ext-1 was not proper¬ly marked and that on perusal of the writing of opp. He was also asked to read an Oriya manuscript, but failed to read the same. So, the Civil Judge held that opp. party No.2 was unable to read and write Oriya. The appellate Court erroneously negatived the said findings observing that, Ext-1 was not proper¬ly marked and that on perusal of the writing of opp. party No.2 in Ext-A, it was found that he was able to write Oriya, albeit there was some grammatical mistakes. So far as reading is con¬cerned, the appellate Court held that there was nothing on record to show as to what was given to opp. party No.2 for reading. It held that when the opp. party No.2 could write Oriya, he can also read Oriya. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that reading and writing Oriya means one should be able to read Oriya and also be able to write Oriya. If one is able to read Oriya, it does not necessarily follow particularly, in the manner in which opp. party No.2 has written in Ext-A that he can read Oriya. If there was no material to show as to what was given to opp. party No.2 to read, the appellate Court ought to have taken evidence in this regard to satisfy itself, whether he was able to read Oriya or in the alternative, it ought to have remanded the case to the election tribunal to take fresh evidence in that regard, but he ought not have totally brushed aside the Judgment of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for opp. party No.2 contended that there is no material on record to show as to what was given to opp. party No.2 for reading. With regard to writing of Oriya by opp. party No.2 on Ext-A, it was submitted that Ext-A is a piece of paper on which some words were stated to have been dictated to opp. party No.2. It does not appear from Ext-A as to who dictated those words. However, the appellate Court examined Oriya words written by opp. party No.2 and held that the words were readable, albeit there were some grammatical mistakes. So, it rightly held that opp. party No.2 was not unable to read and write Oriya and thus, not disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch. Learned counsel for opp. However, the appellate Court examined Oriya words written by opp. party No.2 and held that the words were readable, albeit there were some grammatical mistakes. So, it rightly held that opp. party No.2 was not unable to read and write Oriya and thus, not disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch. Learned counsel for opp. parties further submitted that in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting the errors, where the orders passed by the inferior Courts or Tribunals are without jurisdiction, or in excess of it or failure to exercise the jurisdiction. An error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact however grave it may appear to be. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decisions in the case of Rena Drego (MRs) vrs. Lalchand Soni and others, (1998) 3 SCC 341 and Syed Yakoob vrs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477. So, according to the learned counsel for opposite party No.2, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. As found from Ext. A one small sentence and four words in Oriya were dictated to opposite party No.2, but he could not write a single word correctly. He was asked to write “PARALAAKHE¬MUNDI” which he wrote as “SARALAAKAANITI”. He wrote KADINAGAR instead of KASINAGAR, LAKAAFRAN and somethings, which are not readable, instead of LAXMI PRASAD MOHAPATRA and SARAJ and something, which is also not readable, instead of SARPANCH. He also could not write a correct word in the sentence dictated to him. But the appellate Court held that he could write Oriya with some grammatical mistakes only. It further held that when he could write Oriya, he could also read Oriya. As per Section 11 (c) (ii) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, a candidate must be able to read and write Oriya. In other words, he must be able to read Oriya and he must also be able to write Oriya. Only reading is not sufficient, so also only writing. The purpose of incorporat¬ing Section 11 (c)(ii) in the Orissa Gama Panchayats Act is that a member of the Grama Panchayat including the Sarpanch must be able to write a letter in Oriya and able to read a letter in Oriya also. When opp. Only reading is not sufficient, so also only writing. The purpose of incorporat¬ing Section 11 (c)(ii) in the Orissa Gama Panchayats Act is that a member of the Grama Panchayat including the Sarpanch must be able to write a letter in Oriya and able to read a letter in Oriya also. When opp. party no.2 could not write a word correct¬ly, out of four words including the word “PARALAAKHEMUNDI” where the election petitioner was filed, it cannot be said that he is able to write Oriya. As appears from Ext. A opp. party no.2 does not know even some Oriya alphabets. So, the findings of the appellate Court that since opp. party no.2 could write Oriya, he could also read Oriya when, in fact he could not write a word correctly is perverse and unreasonable which shocks the judicial conscience. In the decision Rena Drego (supra) the apex Court held that power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintend¬ence which cannot be used to upset conclusions of facts, however erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. In the instant case the conclusion arrived at by the appellate Court is so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached it. In the decision Sayed Yakoob (supra) the apex Court held that if a finding of fact is based on no evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by writ of certiorari. In the case at hand as discussed above, the learned appellate Court held that there was no material on record to show, as to what was given to opposite party No.2 to read. So, the finding of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Paralakhemundi that he could not read Oriya was not accepted by the appellate Court. In fact there was no evidence with regard to the writing which was given to opposite party No.2 to read. Without such evidence, the appellate Court held that since opposite party No.2 could write Oriya, he could also read Oriya which is contrary to the statute. As stated earlier as per section 11(c)(ii) of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, no one can be eligible to be a member of Gram Panchayat, if he is unable to read and write Oriya. Without such evidence, the appellate Court held that since opposite party No.2 could write Oriya, he could also read Oriya which is contrary to the statute. As stated earlier as per section 11(c)(ii) of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, no one can be eligible to be a member of Gram Panchayat, if he is unable to read and write Oriya. In other words, he must be knowing writing Oriya, he also must be knowing reading Oriya. The finding of the appellate Court that opposite party No.2 could write Oriya, being based on no evidence is an error of law. so, the impugned order can be interfered with by this Court. I do not think it proper to return back the appeal to the appellate Court to record additional evidence, as I have already held that opposite party No.2 can not read Oriya. 6. Since there were three candidates in the election fray and the opp. party No.2 was found to be disqualified, the elec¬tion petitioner cannot be declared as the elected sarpanch of Siali Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not press for the same. Under such premises, the writ petition is allowed, the judgment of the appellate Court is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court so far it relates to directing the competent authorities to declare the petitioner elected provided he had secured the second highest number of votes is also set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.