The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK AFR W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025 Manamati Pujari …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA Mr. N. Panda, Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.6 to 13 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:11.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.10.2025 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned notice dated 27th January, 2025 as at Annexure-1 series issued in connection with the no confidence motion and the decision of the Sub-Collector, Jeypore, Koraput, namely, opposite party No.4 in fixing a special meeting on 12th February, 2025 for the said purpose without serving copies of the resolution and requisition as required under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that such an exercise is liable to be interferred with and set aside. Page 1 of 8 2. According to the petitioner, the election to the office of the Sarpanch was held in the year, 2022 and he got elected with the mandate of the voters by a thumping majority and since then, discharging duties and obligations with utmost sincerity and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is pleaded that the concerned GP represented by the petitioner as Sarpanch consists of eleven Ward Members and the cause of action is on account of issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1 series. The further pleading on record is that opposite party No.4 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act issued such notice and fixed the meeting to be held on 12th February, 2025 for the no confidence motion, which was duly accepted by the petitioner on 29th January, 2025 with an objection that it did not accompany the copies of the resolution and requisition. As per the petitioner, the no confidence motion is indeed a counterblast to the demand disqualifying ineligible members of the GP and while pleading so, the documents as at Annexure-2 series are referred to. With the claim that the action is not in terms of the provisions the Act and by not complying the mandatory requirements stipulated in Section 24(2) of the Act, the issuance of notice as per Annexure-1 is
Facts
challenged and also the entire proceeding and to declare the same as illegal and the action to be without authority. 3. On the contrary, opposite party Nos.6 to 13 filed the counter and it is pleaded that due to the misconduct of the petitioner and allegation against her, all the Ward Members including the Naib Sarpanch had been to the office of Page 2 of 8 opposite party Nos.2 to 5 to bring it to their notice but since no action was taken, an emergency meeting was held for the no confidence motion on 11th January, 2025 and ultimately, they passed the resolution with a request to opposite party No.4 for action and accordingly, the date for the special meeting was fixed. It is also pleaded that soon after the receipt of the resolution at Annexure-A/1 of the counter, opposite party No.4 communicated the same to opposite party No.2 as required under law and issued notice to the petitioner with a request to opposite party No.5 for its publication in the notice boards of the Block office and Gram Panchayat fixing the date and time with intimation to all to remain present for the meeting and in such view of the matter, no illegality has been committed. 4. According to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, there have been no lapses in complying Section 24 of the Act. It is stated that a copy of the resolution dated 11th January, 2025 was received with the signatures of the eight Ward Members as per Annexure-A/2 along with a requisition on 13th January, 2025 with a request for initiation of motion. A copy of the requisition is at Annexure- B/2. It is pleaded that Section 24(1) of the Act stipulates that 2/3rd of the total members to be present at the meeting for the purpose of resolution and since such a resolution was passed and it was received by opposite party No.4, the decision to hold the meeting for the proposed motion was accordingly taken up and was also communicated to opposite party No.5 thereafter and ultimately, the resolution and requisition were served on the Page 3 of 8 petitioner through the concerned PEO on 29th January, 2025 and in support of such claim, Annexure-C/2 is referred to. It is pleaded that the notice dated 27th January, 2025 along with requisition copy besides the resolution had been sent by Post in the address of the petitioner on 31st January, 2025 and in proof of the same, a copy of the postal receipt has been produced and marked as Annexure-D/2. It is the stand of the State that opposite party No.4 received the requisition of the Ward Members for the no confidence motion but to avoid it, such a plea of having not received copies of the resolution and requisition with the notice is advanced.
Legal Reasoning
which is held to be directory. It has been held by this Court in catena of decisions that a notice without clear fifteen from the date it is signed and special meeting to be held for the motion is fatal as such non-compliance would defeat the purpose since all concerned whosoever involved and having the rights to vote are to be informed about it for a proper response for or against the motion. If in case, notice is received with some amount of delay in any such modes prescribed, the motion cannot be frustrated. It is to be reiterated that prejudice in receiving such notice with delay shall have to be demonstrated. The real intent and purpose behind Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is that the decision for the motion is to be informed in advance either to the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch as the case may be and all others so that there is a timely response received from each and every members of the GP for debate and deliberation during the special meeting convened by the Sub-Collector. The mandatory compliance is in the receiving of the resolution and requisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act and intimation to the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch with a notice by the authority concerned with clear fifteen days in between. 11. Having regard to the position of law decided in Sarat Padhi (supra) to the effect that the scheme of the notice Page 7 of 8 contemplated with the corresponding duty in the issuance of notice with a margin of clear fifteen days between the date of such notice and special meeting to be mandatory and not the mode of service or failure by any members to receive the notice in one of such means not to render the motion invalid as the law is based on the sound public policy since it may be frustrated by tactics employed avoiding receipt of notice and therefore, the legislation has taken care of it to obviate such contingencies incorporating Section 24(2)(e) of the Act, the irresistible conclusion of the Court as to the case of the petitioner is that she received the notice and had the knowledge about the meeting fixed for the motion and has been in no way prejudiced. In so far as the copies of the resolution and requisition not to have been sent on the petitioner as it has been pleaded referring to any such endorsement on Annexure-1, in view of the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.2 to 4, the Court is not inclined to believe it for the reason that opposite party No.4 was most unlikely to default in discharging any such responsibility on receiving requisition of the Ward Members. 12. Hence, it is ordered.
Arguments
5. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 13. 6. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is substantially prejudiced for having not received the copies of the resolution and requisition and highlighted upon the endorsement on the notice i.e. Annexure-1. It is contended that the law stipulates a notice for the motion is to be accompanied with the proposed resolution and the requisition and the same having not been ensured, the proceeding must have to fail. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel would further submit that in view of the endorsement on Annexure-1, it is clearly proved that the notice issued by opposite party No.4 is not in compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act as it mandates a copy of the requisition to accompany the notice along with the proposed Page 4 of 8 resolution and hence, for such non-compliance, the whole of the exercise stood vitiated. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 13 unanimously submit that all other Ward Members including Naib Sarpanch received such notice with the resolution and requisition and similarly, the petitioner and on the date fixed, the motion has been held finally, though, the result of the same has not been published in view of the Court’s interim order dated 11th February, 2025 in I.A. No.2195 of 2025. In support of the contentions advanced, this Court’s order dated 7th November, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.26627 of 2024 (Kusum Deep Vrs. State of Odisha & another) is placed reliance on. To counter the same, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in W.A. No.227 of 2014 decided on 5th August, 2014 to contend that Section 24(2)(a) & (c) of the Act needed to be mandatorily complied with and in case of non-compliance, notice for the motion becomes invalid has held therein. 8. Perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner reiterating the facts with the claim that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch along with eleven Ward Members for the GP in question in the district of Koraput in 2022 and on 18th November, 2024, she had represented opposite party No.4 alleging disqualification of the Ward Members and a similar allegation was made on 2nd January, 2025 as per Annexure-2 series but thereafter, the resolution has been Page 5 of 8 passed and upon receiving the requisition on 13th January, 2025, notice was issued and it was served through opposite party No.5. It is pleaded therein that service of notice through the concerned PEO is admitted by opposite party Nos.2 to 4. As regards, the proof of service of notice received by the petitioner, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the same has been managed after completion of the no confidence motion. With the above pleading, the petitioner claims that the issuance of notice as per Annexure-1 with the exercise of power by opposite party No.4 is not in due compliance of Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. 9. In Kusum Deep (supra), this Court held and concluded that delay in dispatching the notice with receipt of the same by the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch as the case may be is not to invalidate the action. A plea of prejudice is to be examined, in case, it is advanced as further concluded therein referring to a decision of this Court in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2022(I) OLR 377. There is no denial to the fact that the proposed resolution and requisition are to accompany the notice to be received by the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the motion is proposed. In Karunakar Seth Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2025 (1) ILR CUT 1187, it is held by this Court that compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act with regard to modes of service of notice even receiving it with less than fifteen days margin left between the date of notice and special meeting cannot be a ground to challenge the motion, especially when, there is no evidence of any such prejudice being caused to the Sarpanch Page 6 of 8 or Naib Sarpanch after having taken reference of earlier case laws including Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa and others 65 (1988) CLT 122. 10. According to the settled position of law, fifteen days notice is mandatory and not the mode of service of notice,
Decision
13. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Balaram (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 15-Oct-2025 19:24:22 Page 8 of 8