The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24112 of 2024 ..... Pratima Sethi Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. B. Pattnaik, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Pattnaik, AGA (Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4) Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 15) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 27.09.2024 Order No.04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Court, as it is all disputed question of fact and this Court in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Consitution of India cannot go into all those aspects. Similarly, in absence of any provision under Sec. 24 of the Act regarding presence of all the requisitionists of the requisition to remain present while submitting the resolution and the requisition, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel in that regard. 6.1. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned notice issued on 12.09.2024 under Annexure-1. While not inclined to interfere with the notice, it is only observed that if any of the signatories in the requisition during the vote of no confidence, which has been fixed to 30.09.2024, raise an objection that their signatures have been forged or they have not put their signatures, the said aspect can be taken into consideration by the authority, who has been authorized to conduct the no confidence Page 4 of 5. motion on 30.09.2024 in terms of Annexure-1 in accordance with law.
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. B. Pattnaik, Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Opp. Parties and Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 15. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the notice dtd.12.09.2024 so issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-1. Vide the said notice the motion of no confidence brought against the Petitioner, who happens to be the Sarpanch of Kadua Gram Panchayat under Kamakhyanagar Tahasil, has been fixed to 30.09.2024. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that the impugned notice dtd.12.09.2024 so issued under Annexure- Page 1 of 5. 1 has been enclosed with the requisition so signed by the Ward Member and the resolution made by the Ward Members in that regard and the notice so issued is in accordance with law. 4.1. However, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the requisition so enclosed to the notice under Annexure-1 series though is signed by 10 nos. of Ward Members, but all those Ward Members who are the requisitionist in the requisition, since never remained present before the Sub-Collector while presenting the requisition along with the resolution, the said requisition could not have been accepted by Opp. Party No. 3, being an invalid requisition in the eye of law. 4.2. It is also contended that signature of two (2) of the requisitionists as reflected in the requisition available under Annexure-1 series namely Sabita Naik and Sima Bhutia has been manipulated as Sabita Naik is not a Ward Member of Ward No. 11 of the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that one Sabita Sahoo is the Ward Member of Ward No. 11 as reflected in Annexure-2. 4.3. It is also contended that while in the requisition available under Annexure-1 Ward Member Sima Bhutia has put her signature in Odia, but in the document available under Annexure-2, the said Ward Member has put her signature in English. Therefore, signature of Sima Bhutia as a Ward Member has been manipulated. It is accordingly contended that since all the requisitionists who are the signatory to the requisition under Annexure-1 series never remained present before the Sub-Collector while submitting the requisition along with the resolution, Opp. Party No. 3 could not have accepted the same, with issuance of the impugned notice on Page 2 of 5. 12.09.2024 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that since the provisions contained under Sec. 24(2) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act (in short Act) has not been followed in letter and spirit, the impugned notice is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. S. Patnaik, learned AGA and Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Parties on the other hand contended that the impugned notice since has been enclosed with the requisition and resolution, which is not disputed, it amounts to compliance for the provisions contained under Sec. 24(2)(a) & (b) of the Act. 5.1. With regard to the dispute raised by the learned Sr. Counsel regarding the signature of two (2) of the Ward Members namely Sabita Naik & Sima Bhutia available under Annexure-1 and Annexure-2, learned State Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Parties contended that in the requisition Sima Bhutia though has put her signature in Odia, but there is no bar on her part to put the signature in the document available at Annexure- 2 in English. Similarly, Sabita Naik who has put her signature in the requisition being the member of Ward No. 11 is the Ward Member of Ward No. 11 and her name has been wrongly written as Sabita Sahoo in the document available at Annexure-2. Not only that signature of Sabita Sahoo as Ward Member of Ward No. 11 is not there in Annexure-2. 5.2. It is also contended that as provided under Sec. 24(2) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, there is no requirement that all the requisitionists shall remain present before the Sub-Collector while presenting the requisition and the resolution. It is accordingly Page 3 of 5. contended that since the provisions contained under Sec. 24(2) has been duly followed, which is not disputed, the prayer as made in the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while issuing the notice of no confidence vide letter dtd.12.09.2024 under Annexure-1, since it is not disputed that the notice is not enclosed with the requisition and resolution, it is the view of this Court that it amounts to compliance of the provisions contained under Sec. 24(2)(a) & (b) of the Act. The contention raised by the learned Sr. Counsel with regard to signature of two (2) of the Ward members namely Sima Bhutia and Sabita Naik cannot be considered by this
Decision
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Oct-2024 11:04:11 Page 5 of 5.