The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9740 of 2025 Mithila Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Swain, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. A.N. Pattanayak, Advocate for O.P. Nos.6 and 7 Mr. I A. Acharya, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 8, 9, 11 to 16 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 07. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Decision
ORDER 11.09.2025 Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 11 to 16. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the issuance of notice vis-a-vis no confidence motion as at Annexure-5 by opposite party No.3 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that opposite party No.3 did not receive a copy of the resolution along with requisition i.e. Annexure-4, hence, such issuance of notice as per Annexure-5 is legally not tenable for non-compliance of Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The further submission is that even on a bare reading of the resolution Page 1 of 6 dated 7th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3, it is not revealed that a motion was proposed by the requisition. The submission of Mr. Swain, learned counsel is that even in the requisition dated 10th December, 2024 as per Annexure-4, nothing is mentioned about the resolution dated 7th December, 2024. The contention is that in view of the requisition received as per Annexure-4, in absence of a copy of the requisition sent along with it, any such decision of opposite party No.3 not in terms with Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit, it is further submitted by Mr. Swain, learned counsel that in absence of the resolution being received by opposite party No.3, notice as per Annexure-5 could not have been issued acting upon the requisition i.e. Annexure-4. In support of such contention, Mr. Swain, learned counsel refers to the following decision, such as, Smt. Kamala Tiria Vrs. State of Orissa and others AIR 2001 Orissa 67 and Muktamanjari Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2010(II) OLR 473 with the contention that having not received a copy of the resolution along with requisition i.e. Annexure-4, the entire exercise at the instance of opposite party No. 3 dealing with a motion stands vitiated. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit would submit that not only the resolution was received so also the requisition and upon receipt of such requisition, opposite party No.3 proceeded further and issued the notice as per Annexure-5. It is further submitted that necessary verification of the signatures of the Ward Members of the GP concerned in connection with the no confidence Page 2 of 6 motion was directed as per Annexure-A/5 series. The submission is that opposite party No.3 having received the requisition was duty bound to fix up a date for a special meeting to be convened for the motion and accordingly, proceeded fixing the date of such motion on 16th April, 2025 and hence, issued the notice i.e. Annexure-C/5 under challenge. It is submitted that the substance of the resolution is to be considered and it has been received by opposite party No.3 along with Annexure-4 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that nothing has been described therein while demanding motion is totally misconceived. Furthermore, the submission is that there is no proper format or proforma prescribed under law as to in what manner, a resolution is to be drawn up and also the requisition, hence, therefore, any such plea advanced by the petitioner is also liable to be rejected and in support of the above argument, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State cited the following decisions, such as, Sulochana Sethy Vrs. The Collector, Puri and others (2022) AIR (Orissa) 89 and Prahallad Dalei Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2015 SCC Online Ori 395. 5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.6 and 7 and also Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 11 to 16, according to whom, they has been no illegality committed by opposite party No.3 as on a bare reading of Annexure-4 followed by the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5, it would appear that upon receiving such requisition along with a copy Page 3 of 6 of the resolution that the date was fixed for the motion to be held on 16th April, 2025. 6. Perused the resolution dated 7th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3 and therein, the details of the discussion held have been narrated and the reason behind the motion to be initiated against the petitioner. In so far as Annexure-4 is concerned, even if it is not described in very many words but such requisition appears to be consequent upon the resolution i.e. Annexure-3 with a request to opposite party No.3 to convene the special meeting. That apart, considering the notice i.e. Annexure-5, the Court finds that opposite party No.3 fixed the date for the motion and sent the copies of the requisition and resolution to all concerned including the petitioner, so therefore, the claim of the petitioner that such requisition was never received along with the resolution is unacceptable. As far as the absence of one of the Ward Members is concerned, as it is pleaded by the petitioner referring to the counter affidavit of the State, the Court is not inclined to accept such a plea either for the reason that for the purpose of resolution, there has been a quorum and upon such resolution being passed, the Ward Members and Sarpanch moved opposite party No.3 with a request as per the requisition i.e. Annexure-4 to fix a date for the motion to be held. 7. Regarding the decision in Smt. Kamala Tiria (supra), Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that resolution proposed to be moved during the special meeting has to the received by the Sub-Collector for purpose of motion Page 4 of 6 along with the requisition and in the case at hand, since it has not taken place, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed. But, on a proper reading of the above decision, the Court finds that the extract of the meeting held with the minutes of the discussion was sent to the Sub-Collector and under such circumstances, it has been held therein by this Court that the resolution was never received and hence, upon the requisition, the motion could not have been held. In the instant case, however, the requisition has been received by opposite party No.3 and it was accompanied with the resolution. Merely by referring to Annexure-4, it cannot be alleged that opposite party No.3 did not receive such resolution for the motion. In fact, considering the counter affidavit of the State and the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5, it is made to understand that opposite party No.3 did receive the resolution along with the requisition and thereafter, fixed the date for the motion on 16th April, 2025. Having said that, the above decision relied upon by Mr. Swain, learned counsel of this Court is inapplicable. 8. As far as the other decisions placed reliance on by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State are concerned, in Prahallad Dalei (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider if any such notice issued by the Sub-Collector in respect of a no confidence motion is to be interfered with as therein the question was whether the motion was consequent upon a resolution contemplated under Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and finally held and concluded that no form and proforma has been prescribed either for the notice to be issued by the Sub- Collector for calling the members including Sarpanch and Naib Page 5 of 6 Sarpanch as the case may be to attend the meeting and what is more important is the intention of the requisites number of members and the purpose of the resolution and if such a resolution with a requisition is received, there is due compliance. In the case at hand, there is no denial to the fact that the requisition was received and only question raised by the petitioner was about opposite party No.3 having not received a copy of the resolution but considering the notice i.e. Annexure-5 and the counter affidavit and specific reply of the State therein, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the plea of the petitioner regarding absence of resolution received by opposite party No.3 is wholly misconceived and hence, deserves to be rejected. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10th April, 2025 in IA No.5746 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 12-Sep-2025 12:11:10 Page 6 of 6