The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.328 of 2025 and I.A. no.878 of 2025 Arati Pradhan …. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates of hearing: 14th February, 2025, 4th March, 2025 and 10th March, 2025 Date of judgment: 10th March, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ. 1. Appellant had filed a writ petition praying that notice dated 27th August, 2024 and resolution dated 19th July, 2024 be quashed. Page 1 of 6 Contention of petitioner before the learned single Judge was, the requisition was not enclosed in the notice issued, as mandated by sub- section (2) of section 54 in Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. A notice to be issued by the Collector was required to have enclosed therewith, both the requisition as well as the resolution. Petitioner’s case was, the requisition was not enclosed in the notice. Furthermore, resolution copy enclosed in the notice was not a true copy but apparently a copy reflecting pagination. The requirement under the provision is mandatory, while the procedure follows in the rules. The learned single Judge failed to appreciate the facts in dismissing the writ petition challenging petitioner’s removal on defective notice. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant. Mr. Kar, learned advocate, Government Advocate appears on behalf of State, Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears for respondent no.4 and Mr. Bhuyan, learned senior advocate, for respondent nos. 6, 7, 9 to 11. 3. Contention on behalf of respondent no.4 was, the notice served on appellant carried the resolution as well as the requisition. Appellant cannot deny she became aware of the notice, as received by her father- W.A. No.328 of 2025 Page 2 of 6 in-law, who had made clear acknowledgement on receiving the notice, to be along with the resolution and the requisition. 4. At this juncture it would be convenient to reproduce paragraphs 5 and 6 from our order dated 14th February, 2025. “5. Sub-section (2) says, inter alia, in convening the meeting the procedure shall be in accordance with the rules subject however to the provisions named therein. Clause (a) in the sub-section says, no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition duly signed along with copy of resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting. Clause (b) provides for the requisition to be addressed to the District Magistrate. Clause(c) mandates the District Magistrate, to within 10 days of receipt of the requisition, fix the meeting and give notice of the same to all councillors holding office, of such notice along with copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution. At this stage we are prima facie satisfied, any aberration may cause the meeting held thereafter to be pronounced as not duly held. 6. In view of aforesaid we require State to produce the file of the District Magistrate and the officer must avail the convenience of video conferencing to assist us on adjourned date. The officer is at liberty to be physically present.” W.A. No.328 of 2025 Page 3 of 6 (emphasis supplied) 5. Today Mr. Kar produces the original file. Collector, Nayagarh is virtually present. 6. We required Mr. Kar to show us office copy of the notice issued to the councillors under sub-section (2) in section 54. Mr. Kar complied. We found the office copy had attached to it photocopy of the resolution bearing endorsement of attestation. Following it was another copy of the notice bearing endorsement on service. 7. We then asked Mr. Kar to identify from the file, original requisition received. Mr. Kar identified it for us. We looked at it and rest of the papers in the file. There is no attested copy of the requisition in it. 8. We required Mr. Mishra, appearing on behalf of petitioner, to show us original notice received by his client. He identified it from the writ file as produced before the learned single Judge. We looked at the original notice appellant had received. It exactly corresponds with office copy notice bearing as enclosure, the resolution. We note that office copy of the notice, as aforesaid, bears enclosure of copy of the resolution as attested, the original resolution being elsewhere in the file. Petitioner’s notice simply had enclosure of photocopy of the copy W.A. No.328 of 2025 Page 4 of 6 resolution attached to the office copy of the notice, without the endorsement of attestation. 9. It appears from impugned judgment, a position on fact was pronounced upon by the learned single Judge to be, appellant cannot deny receipt of the notice along with copies of the resolution and requisition because her father-in-law had acknowledged receipt of it. Appellant had contended otherwise before the learned single Judge and maintains such contention before us, causing us to have called for and look at the original file. On query made the Collector submits, omission to enclose the requisition, when brought to his notice, he issued a subsequent notice enclosing it. 10. It is clear that finding of fact by the learned single Judge was erroneous. The notice convening the meeting issued on 27th August, 2024 did not meet with mandatory requirement as provided under sub- section (2) in section 54. Mr. Bhuyan submits, this finding by the appellate Court is not necessary in view of submission made by the Collector and subsequent fact of deferment of the meeting, it having been held and not challenged. We have seen from paragraph-12 of impugned judgment, this contention was negated by the learned single Judge. Petitioner before said Court is appellant before us. Mr. Bhuyan’s W.A. No.328 of 2025 Page 5 of 6 clients cannot assail the reason given on this contention as no cross appeal was filed. Furthermore, when the original notice is bad, any deferment or action taken pursuant thereto, must also be held to be bad. 11. Impugned judgment is set aside in appeal. Consequently, prayer in the writ petition is allowed. Notice dated 27th August, 2024 is set aside and quashed. Interim order passed in the appeal will thus merge.
Decision
12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. ( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Mar-2025 10:52:33 W.A. No.328 of 2025 Page 6 of 6