JUDGMENT
A. Pasayat, Actg. C.J.
1. Petitioner calls in question legality of decision rendered by the Election Commissioner-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Naupada and learned District Judge, Kalshandi-Nuapada in respect of a petition under Section 44 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (in short, the ‘Act’). Petitioner was elected as a Samiti member from Gorla Samiti constituency of Sinapali Block, while opp. party No. 1 Truptimayee Meher was elected from Hatibandha constituency of the same Block. Post of Chairman of Sanapali Panchayat Samiti was reserved for Scheduled Tribe woman candidate. Both petitioner and opposite party No. I contested for Chairmanship. Petitioner was elected. It is to be noted that election was held on 23-1-1997. An election dispute was filed by opp. party No. 1 challenging petitioner’s election on the ground that she does not know how to read and write
Oriya. Learned Civil Judge as Election Commissioner on assessment of evidence came to hold that petitioner was disqualified as she is not able to read and write Oriya. For that purpose, evidence of opp. party No. 1 and Block Development Officer who was examined as OPW 1 was taken note of Conclusion was assailed in appeal before learned District Judge who affirmed the conclusion.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner urged that due and proper opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to show that she is able to read and write Oriya before drawing an adverse inference. With reference to the affidavit filed in this Court and vakalatnama, it is stated that those clearly show that she has signed her name in Oriya and it amply goes to prove that she knows to read and write Oriya. Learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 submitted that on assessment of evidence Courts below came to a factual conclusion that she does not know to read and write in Oriya. While dealing with a writ petition, it is not permissible to conclude otherwise, particularly when materials exist to support the conclusion.
3. Section 45, appearing in Chapter VII of the Act deals with disqualification for becoming a member and continuing as a member. The said provision, so far as relevant reads as follows :
“45. Disqualification for becoming a member and continuing as a member.– (1) A person shall not be eligible to stand for election under subsection (1) of Section 16, if he-
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (t) is not able to read and write Oriya; or XXX XXX XXX XXX" XXX"
In order to attract the disqualification, the concerned person should be one who is not able to read and write Oriya. The condition is cumulative and not alternative. In other words, a person who is only able to either read or write Oriya only is not eligible. Courts below have come to hold that petitioner is only able to write her name and that too incorrectly in Oriya. It is to be noted that petitioner did not choose to examine herself as a witness before the Election Commissioner. The only course therefore, available to the Election Commissioner was to test the veracity of the witnesses examined from the sides of parties and
to come to a conclusion. That has been done. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal and to interfere unless conclusions are per se perverse, unreasonable and against weight of materials on record. Here, on assessment of evidence conclusions were arrived at by the Election Commissioner which were upheld by learned District Judge in appeal. That being the position, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ application, more particularly when question whether somebody knows how to read and write in a particular language has to be factually adjudicated and that has been done with reference to materials on record in the case at hand. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within bound of their authority, and not for correcting mere errors. A mere wrong decision without anything more is to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred under the said Article is limited seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. In exercising the supervisory power, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors in the decision. The power of superintendence being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The power of superintendence is not intended to confer in the High Court an unlimited prerogative to interfere in every case where a wrong decision has been arrived at by a judicial or quasi judicial, Court or Tribunal, either on fact or in law. The High Court will refuse to issue any writ in the event it is found that substantial justice has been done to the parties or in larger interest it would not be prudent to issue such a writ.
4. The writ application is without any merit I and is dismissed. No costs,
C.R. Pal, J.
5. I agree.