JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kalyanpur G.P. under Bhubaneswar block in the district of Khurda in the last election held during the year 2007. When she was continuing as such, a complaint in writing was made to the learned Collector, Khurda by opp.party No.5 alleging that she had three children and the last child was born on 18.9.1996 and that she was involved in corruption by misusing her position. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Collector registered Election Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 and issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him on 6.8.2010. As she did not appear on the date fixed, the case was taken up ex-parte. In course of enquiry, learned Collector directed the Medical Officer, Mendhasal P.H.C. to obtain the relevant record relating to date of birth of the children of the petitioner and accordingly, the Medical Officer produced the Births and Deaths Registers maintained in his office. On perusal of the Births and Deaths Register of the year 1992, it was found at Sl. No.1351 that a female child was born to her on 25.9.1992. It was found at Serial No.1341 of the Births and Deaths Register of the year 1994 that a male child was born to the petitioner on 5.11.1994. From Sl. No.1974 of the Births and Deaths Register of the year 1996 it was found that she gave birth to a male child on 18.9.1996. So since the 3rd child was born after the cut-off date as envisaged under Section 25(1) (v) of the Orissa G.P. Act, the Collector declared the petitioner as disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch vide order dated 7.1.2011 and directed to publish it in the notice board. It was further ordered that with effect from the date of publication of the order, the petitioner would be deemed to have vacated the office of Sarpanch of Kalyanpur G.P. Accordingly, notice was published under Annexure-1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the learned Collector, Khurda and Annexure-1. 2.In the writ petition, the petitioner admitted to have given birth to a 3rd child, but according to her it was born before the cut-off date. It is her specific case that the 3rd child was born on 10.3.1995. 2.In the writ petition, the petitioner admitted to have given birth to a 3rd child, but according to her it was born before the cut-off date. It is her specific case that the 3rd child was born on 10.3.1995. During scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was raised that petitioner was not eligible to contest the election as she begot the 3rd child after the cut-off date. So, she obtained a medical certificate from the Medical Officer of Maidharapara P.H.C., Cuttack on 12.3.1995 in support of delivery of the 3rd child on 10.3.1995. On production of the said document, she was declared to be eligible to contest the election. It is her further case that she received notice in connection with Gram Panchayat Election Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 from the learned Collector to appear before him on 6.8.2010, on receipt of which, she approached learned counsel, Mr. A. Swain to appear on her behalf before the learned Collector. Mr. Swain accepted Vakalatnama and took some plain papers being duly signed by the petitioner and assured her to take care of the case. When petitioner received Annexure-1, she was surprised to know that an ex-parte order was passed against her. So, the writ petition, with prayer to quash the order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the learned Collector, Khurda and Annexure-1. 3.Learned counsel for the opp.party No.5 in his counter contented that petitioner was aware of the proceeding against her before the learned Collector. She also knew that the case was fixed to 6.8.2010 for hearing, but deliberately she did not appear before the Court. The allegation that Mr. A. Swain, learned counsel took Vakalatnama and duly signed plain papers from the petitioner to appear before the learned Collector in the aforesaid case on her behalf is a myth. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Collector to interfere with in this writ petition. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a democratically elected people’s representative. She engaged a counsel to appear on her behalf on the date fixed, but he did not appear. So, for the fault of the counsel, petitioner should not be punished. He further submits that as per the medical certificate under Annexure-2, the 3rd child of the petitioner was born on 10.3.1995, i.e., before the cut-off date. She engaged a counsel to appear on her behalf on the date fixed, but he did not appear. So, for the fault of the counsel, petitioner should not be punished. He further submits that as per the medical certificate under Annexure-2, the 3rd child of the petitioner was born on 10.3.1995, i.e., before the cut-off date. During scrutiny of the nomination, it was alleged that she was ineligible to contest the election as her 3rd child was born after the cut off date. But, on production of the birth certificate of the 3rd child showing that he was born on 10.3.1995, she was declared eligible to contest the election. So, the impugned order and Annexure-1 should be quashed and the writ petition should be allowed. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for opp.party No.5 contends that petitioner deliberately did not appear before the learned Collector on the date fixed. He developed a cock and bull story in the writ petition stating that she engaged Mr. A Swain, learned counsel to appear on her behalf. After going through the Births and Deaths Register, learned Collector, rightly held that the 3rd child of the petitioner was born on 18.9.1996. The certificate under Annexure-2 in fact is not a birth certificate and the doctor who issued it was not competent to give a birth certificate. So, the order of the learned Collector should not be interfered with. 6.Admittedly, petitioner is a Scheduled Caste lady. In her writ petition, she admits that she received notice from the learned Collector to appear on 6.8.2010 before him. As per her case, she engaged Mr. A. Swain, learned counsel to appear on her behalf. Of course, it is denied by opp.party No.5 and his counsel, Mr. A. Swain also. Since there is dispute with regard to factual aspect, this writ Court cannot decide whether the plea taken by the petitioner or the objection made by opp.party No.5 is true, but the fact remains that the impugned order was passed ex-parte. Petitioner is a democratically elected people’s representative. The question of giving birth to the 3rd child after the cut off date was raised at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and on production of the birth certificate, a copy of which is Annexure-2, the petitioner was declared eligible to contest the election. Petitioner is a democratically elected people’s representative. The question of giving birth to the 3rd child after the cut off date was raised at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and on production of the birth certificate, a copy of which is Annexure-2, the petitioner was declared eligible to contest the election. Natural justice demands that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the case before the learned Collector. 7.Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the learned Collector, Khurda and the consequential notification under Annexure-1 are quashed and the case is remanded back to the learned Collector, Khurda to hear it afresh. In the meantime the petitioner shall be handed over the charge of Sarpanch. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the Misc. Case No.2793 of 2010 is disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of.