JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the alleged illegal, arbitrary and mala fide action of opposite parties in not considering her prayer for inclusion of her name in the voter list despite her application dated 19.10.2011 under Form 16 submitted before the Competent Authority and direction of this Court dated 15.11.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.29686 of 2011. 2. This is the second round litigation initiated by the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to opposite party No.1-State Election Commissioner to look into the genuine grievance of the petitioner by adding her name in the fresh Electoral Roll of the village Satrusola under Subalaya Grama Panchayat under Ganjam Block in the district of Ganjam for the ongoing Grama Panchayat Election, urging various facts and legal contentions. 3. The brief facts of the present writ petition are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for against the opposite parties. It is the case of the petitioner that she got married in the year 2009 to one Basanta Kumar Palei of village Satrusola under Ganjam Block. Since then she has been residing with her husband in that village permanently and peacefully. Prior to her marriage, she had obtained a valid Voter Identity Card which was issued by the Election Commission of India and her name also finds place in the Electoral Roll under Puri District. Since, presently she has been residing in the village Satrusola under Subalaya Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam in house No.48 and has obtained valid residential certificate to prove her identity as a permanent resident in the said house, she is requiring to enrol her name in the present constituency. Due to preparation of Fresh Electoral Roll for the ongoing Grama Panchayat Election pursuant to the direction of opposite party No.1 throughout the State and accordingly on 12.10.2011 opposite party No.4-Election Officer issued a Notice in Form-2 under Annexure-1 for inclusion of the names in view of Section 9 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, wherein it was stated that the application or any objection has to be received before 19.10.2011. The said notice was affixed in the Panchayat Office Notice Board. 4. Mr. Asim Amitav Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid notification, since the petitioner's name did not find place in the previous electoral roll, she applied for the same under Form-16 (Annexure-2) on 19.10.2011 and approached to opposite party No.4-Election Officer for inclusion of her name in the voter list. Thereafter, the petitioner ascertained that a mischief has been done by the present Chairperson of Ganjam Block, who is a co-villager of the petitioner and his wife is also an aspirant not only for the post of the Samiti Member, but also the post of Chairperson as the same has been kept reserve for the SEBC Women. Opposite party No.4-Election Officer, who was working under the Chairman of Ganjam Block, he has prevailed upon him not to accept the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner immediately approached the opposite party No.4-Election Officer on 24.10.2011 and enquired the same. In reply, he came to know that the last date of submission of application was extended again to 29.10.2011 and on request he again submitted another application for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Voter List. 5. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts narrated, a doubt arose in the mind of the petitioner and she had apprehension that her name may not be included at the behest of the Chairperson and for that reason on 31.10.2011, the petitioner with her husband again approached the Collector and applied under Annexure-3 for inclusion of her name in the fresh Voter List and also prayed for an appropriate enquiry to come out the truth. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties immediately approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.29686 of 2011 which was disposed of on 15.11.2011. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below: "15.11.2011 xx xx xx 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the representation of the petitioner is pending before opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam, it would be suffice for this Court to direct the said Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, which we accordingly direct. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the representation of the petitioner is pending before opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam, it would be suffice for this Court to direct the said Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, which we accordingly direct. 5. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Collector within a week. On receipt of such order the Collector shall act in accordance with law and take a decision to include the name of the petitioner in the fresh voter list as prayed for in this writ petition before the notification is issued by the Election Commission for holding the election after verifying the documents which will be produced by the petitioner. xx xx xx" 6. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure-4) along with relevant documents like marriage invitation card, copy of the electricity bill, voter identity card and residential certificate etc. before opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam and on the very same day the said Collector directed opposite party No.5-District Panchayat Officer to take appropriate steps. Thereafter, the petitioner got a notice dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-5 series) inviting her to appear before the Collector on 19.12.2011 at 5 PM for hearing. Finally, the petitioner was communicated the order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector, Ganjam, wherein it has been stated that requisite documents have not been filed along with the application. Therefore, inclusion of her name has not been accepted. Being aggrieved by the order under Annexure-7 passed by the Collector, Ganjam, the petitioner has again approached this Court. 7. The present writ petition is opposed by Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate placing reliance on the preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 5 sworn-to by the opposite party No.5-District Panchayat Officer, Ganjam, wherein there is a reference to notice issued by opposite party No.3-B.D.O., Ganjam inviting objections from the villager under the jurisdiction of Ganjam Block. Pursuant to such notification inviting objections for omission or addition of names in the electoral roll, several petitions were received. The same were verified and accordingly steps were also taken. Pursuant to such notification inviting objections for omission or addition of names in the electoral roll, several petitions were received. The same were verified and accordingly steps were also taken. It is submitted that the petitioner has never submitted any application for inclusion of her name in the Electoral Roll of village Satrusola. Therefore, her assertion made in paragraph-1 of the writ petition is incorrect and false. Further with reference to Annexure-2 itself as the receipt provided for receiving such application is blank. Therefore, it is sated that the petitioner has never submitted any application for inclusion of her name in the voter list. Further it is stated that Annexure-2 has been purposefully manufactured for the purpose of filing of the present writ petition. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is not bona fide. With reference to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(C) NO.29686 of 2011, Mr. Nayak, states that at the stage of admission, the direction was issued to opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam to consider the grievance of the petitioner and on receipt of such order, the authority has acted in accordance with law and taken a decision holding that she has not filed application for inclusion of her name and on the other hand the petitioner has filed this writ petition, Further, it is stated that the order of this Court dated 15.11.2011 was received in the office of the Collector on 25.11.2011 and the same was finally submitted to P.D., D.R.D.A., on 12.12.2011 after due process. On 13.12.2011, the same was placed before the Collector. On the very same day, the Collector immediately directed for issuance of notice to the petitioner for appearance fixing tile date of hearing to 19.12,2011. On 13.12.2011, the same was placed before the Collector. On the very same day, the Collector immediately directed for issuance of notice to the petitioner for appearance fixing tile date of hearing to 19.12,2011. The husband of the petitioner appeared instead of the petitioner and he requested to include the name of his wife-petitioner in the fresh Voter List of Odiasahi of Village Satrusola under Subalaya Grama Panchayat, but the same has not been included on political grounds, Further, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner has not filed any document either showing that the petitioner is a resident of village in question or she has submitted any application for inclusion of her name in the Electoral Roll before the B.D.O. Considering the petition, the Collector disposed of the same by passing a reasoned order that no document whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner before the Collector on19.12.2011. Concluding his argument, Mr. B.K. Nayak, prays for dismissal of the writ petition as the notification for conducting the election has already been published. 8. Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1-State Election Commissioner, Odisha supporting the case of opposite party Nos.2 to 5 contends that the notification of calendar of events already issued and filing of nomination is going to be started. Since finding of fact recorded by opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam in his order that she has not applied in the prescribed Form-16 pursuant to the notice issued by opposite party No.1-Election Commissioner for conducting election in the State of Orissa, at this stage, if this Court is issued direction for inclusion of the name of the petitioner, the same would amount to interference with the election process. Further, it is submitted that since the petitioner has not submitted Form-16 pursuant to the notice as per finding of fact recorded by the Collector, the same need not be interfered with by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. Concluding his argument, Mr. Acharya, also prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. On the above rival, factual & legal contentions, the questions that would arise for consideration by this Court :– (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition? (ii) What order? 10. Concluding his argument, Mr. Acharya, also prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. On the above rival, factual & legal contentions, the questions that would arise for consideration by this Court :– (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition? (ii) What order? 10. In our considered view the aforesaid questions are required to be answered in favour of the petitioner for the following reasons: Earlier occasion on the basis of the assertion of fact, this Court disposed of WP.(C) No.29686 of 2011 on 15.11.2011 filed by the petitioner at the stage of preliminary hearing. The order dated 15.11.2011 passed by this Court reads thus: "15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for State-opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction to opposite party No.1 State Election Commissioner to add his name in the fresh Electoral Roll of the village Satrusola under Huma Grama Panchayat, Ganjam Block in the district of Ganjam which is yet to be prepared for the ensuing Grama Panchayat Election. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the year 2009 the petitioner got married to one Basanta Kumar Palei of Village Satrusola under Ganjam Block. Prior to her marriage, she has obtained valid Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and her name also finds place in the Electoral Roll under Puri District. Since she has married to Basanta Kumar Palei in the district of Ganjam, she requested the Collector by filing a representation dt. 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5) to include her name in the fresh voter list of Satrusola village in the district of Ganjam of the ensuing Grama Panchayat Election but no step has been taken in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the representation of the petitioner is pending before opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam, it would be suffice for this Court to direct the said Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, which we accordingly direct. 5. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Collector within a week. 5. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Collector within a week. On receipt of such order, the Collector shall act in accordance with law and take a decision to include the name of the petitioner in the fresh voter list as prayed for in this writ petition before the notification is issued by the Election Commission for holding the election after verifying the documents which will be produced by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. xx xx xx" 11. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted a representation under Annexure-4 along with relevant documents like marriage invitation card, copy of the electricity bill, voter identity card and residential certificate etc. before opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam on 25.11.2011, which was acknowledged by the Office of the Collector. It is also asserted that she got married in the year 2009 and has been staying with her husband permanently in the village Satrusola under Subalaya Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam. Before the calendar of events issued, she had approached the Collector by giving representation dated 31.10.2011 with an apprehension that her name may not be included in the voter list at the instance of the Sarpanch as the said seat is reserved for SEBC Women since he was planning to make his wife to contest from the said constituency. Therefore, the Collector, has not considered her application and also representation dated 31.10.2011. On the basis of the pleadings and documents produced in the earlier writ petition referred to supra, this Court directed the Collector to take a decision to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list as prayed for in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that relevant documents were produced along with the representation under Annexure-4 before the Collector and the Collector was required to examine the same. In stead of examining, he has stated that neither the application in the prescribed Form-16 has been filed nor any other document has been produced. In the preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2, 3, and 5, there is no denial of production of documents. With reference to the representation dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5 series), the petitioner submitted the relevant documents, which have not been taken into consideration. In the preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2, 3, and 5, there is no denial of production of documents. With reference to the representation dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5 series), the petitioner submitted the relevant documents, which have not been taken into consideration. Therefore, non-consideration of the relevant documents for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the voter list is erroneous finding of fact recorded by the Collector and this Court is of the opinion that the normal course it could have directed the Collector to reconsider the application of the petitioner. Since the Calendar of events has already been issued and finally nomination of the ensuing election process is going go be started, it would be just and proper for us to direct opposite party No.2-Collector to include the name of the petitioner as he has not considered the said documents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the Collector takes time, then the claim of the petitioner will be frustrated. Therefore, direction is required to be issued to the Collector to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list after verifying the documents. 12. The contention urged by Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respective opposite parties that the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage as the election process has already commenced, is not accepted for the reasons stated supra. 13. In view of our specific direction issued in the earlier writ petition referred to supra, wherein we had given specific direction to the Collector that he is required to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list in the village in question after verifying the documents, which will be produced by the petitioner before the notification was issued by the Election Commissioner for holding the election having regard to the assertion made in the writ petition that the petitioner after marriage is staying with her husband in the village referred to supra. Further, issuance of a direction is required to be issued to the opposite party No.2 to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list to facilitate her to exercise her franchise and to contest in the election to the post in question in the Grama Panchayat. 14. Further, issuance of a direction is required to be issued to the opposite party No.2 to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list to facilitate her to exercise her franchise and to contest in the election to the post in question in the Grama Panchayat. 14. For the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that the impugned order under Annexure-7 is erroneous in law for non-consideration of the relevant documents produced by the petitioner along with representation under Annexure-4. After we gave direction on 15.11.2011 in the earlier writ petition referred to supra filed by the petitioner for consideration of her claim in including her name in the voter list of the village in question to participate her in the election of Grama Panchayat in question, the same has not been done. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to opposite parties to include her name in the voter list. 15. In our considered view, unless the impugned order under Annexure-7 is quashed, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. However, considering the second prayer of the petitioner, we exercise our discretionary power to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order under Annexure-7, which we direct accordingly. 16. For the reasons stated above we quash the impugned order under Annexure-7 passed by opposite party No.2-Collector, Ganjam and direct the said authority by issuing a writ of mandamus to him to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list so as to contest in the ensuing election. 17. Further, we make it clear that this judgment will not be cited as precedent in any other case. The aforesaid direction is given only having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition disposed of.