Nibedita Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01.

ORDER 21.08.2025 Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned notice dated 6th August, 2025 at Annexure-1 issued in terms of Section 53 of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice and to declare initiation of the action to be untenable in law in absence of an enquiry held as contemplated under the Act.

Referring to Annexure-2 series, it is submitted by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner that upon receiving the intimation from opposite party No.3, the impugned notice as per Annexure-1 has been issued by the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department without proper enquiry being held and concluded as the same is a statutory mandate in view of Section 53(2) of the Act. At the same time, it is submitted that the petitioner has approached the Government with a representation dated 28th July, 2025 as at Annexure-3 series without any decision being taken thereon, hence, therefore, the initiation of the proceeding with the issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1 is unjustified and not sustainable in law.

Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, referring to Annexure-1 submits that an enquiry has been held and upon receiving report into the allegations made, such notice has been issued directing the petitioner to submit explanation within the stipulated period, hence, there is no illegality committed and as such, action is in accordance with Section 53 of the Act.

Admittedly, there is no reference of any report received from an Enquiry Officer revealed from the notice i.e. Annexure-1. It is suggested that an enquiry has been conducted into the allegations and thereafter, Annexure-1 has been issued. In fact, Section 53(1) of the Act stipulates that for any such willful omission, refusal to carry out orders and the provisions of the Act, rules, regulation or disobedience to the lawful orders issued, an enquiry is to be held by the Director or the District Magistrate or by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the State Government as the Government may by notification direct and upon receiving the report from the Enquiry Officer in view of sub-section (2) thereof, an opportunity to the concerned Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, is to be provided to submit explanation within three weeks thereafter. On a reading of the above provision, the Court finds that for any such removal of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, an enquiry is sine qua non and only upon receipt of a report from the Enquiry Officer, the State Government is to allow him an opportunity to submit an explanation.

In the case at hand, according to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, no such enquiry was held, rather, the action is initiated only upon receiving the intimation from opposite party No.3 referring to Annexure-2 series. The Court is in agreement with Mr. Dalai, learned counsel that the process of removal of a Chairperson shall have to be in strict compliance of Section 53 of the Act. But, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to respond with a notice dated 6th August, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1 and in the meantime, he has approached opposite party No.1 with a representation i.e. Annexure-3 series, the Court is of the view that the plea as has been advanced at present with reference to Section 53(2) of the Act is required to be duly examined with followed by a final order. In other words, before any such action against the petitioner, he shall have to be allowed the opportunity to reply to the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 for a decision by opposite party No.1 only in terms of Section 53 of the Act.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of granting the liberty for the petitioner to raise all such ground challenging the action under Section 53 of the Act consequent upon issuance of impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 and on receiving the same within the stipulated period fixed, it shall be duly examined by opposite party No.1 followed by a decision according to law and till such time, a final order is passed on such reply, he shall not be removed from the office of the Chairmanship of the Municipality. It is further directed that in case, no such enquiry has been held, opposite party No.1 shall take cognizance of the same and to take action only in accordance with Section 53 of the Act.

Issue urgent copy of this order as per rules and in course of the day. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 21-Aug-2025 17:41:21