High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28879 of 2024 Mitali Mishra …. Petitioner Pe Mr. S.K. Dalai, Ad Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha a and others …. Opposite Mr. C.M. Sin site parties Singh, ASC , Advocate Mr. P.K. Rath, Ad CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 06. 1. Heard M
Legal Reasoning
d Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitione oner, Mr.
Decision
ORDER 17.12.2024 Singh, learned AS ASC for the State for opposite party Nos.1 to 1 to 5 and Mr. Rath, learne rned Senior Advocate appearing for intervener r in I.A. No. 15959 of 20 2024. 2. Instant w writ petition is filed by the petitioner chall hallenging the impugned no notice dated 11th September, 2024 as at Anne nnexure-4 on the grounds nds inter alia that the same is contrary y to the mandatory prov rovisions of the Odisha Grama Panchaya ayats Act (hereinafter refe eferred to ‘the Act’) and further to allow w her to discharge duty as y as Sarpanch of the concerned GP. 3. Mr. Dal Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submi bmits that reasonable oppo pportunity of hearing has not been provided ed to the petitioner witho ithout supplying the relevant documents as as it was applied for tho hough the second show cause notice date dated 11th September, 2024 024 has been issued and received in the meant antime. It is further submit mitted that the manner in which the proceed eding has been conducted ed is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner ner as she is to suffer disqu isqualification in terms of Section 25(n) of th f the Act. While advancing cing such an argument, Mr. Dalai, learned c d counsel refers to a decisi cision of the Apex Court Sonam Lakra Vrs. S s. State of Chhattisgarh and and others in Civil Appeal No.12326 of 2024 24 arising out of SLP (C) N No.7279 of 2024. In support of such conte ontention, one more decisi cision is relied on in the case of Manisha Ra Ravindra Panpatil Vrs. Sta State of Maharashtra and others, 2024 SCC C OnLine SC 2690. The co contention is that the reply as per Annexure ure-9 was received on 8th N November, 2024, however, it was followed ed by the letter as at Anne nnexure-10. It is submitted that reply at Anne nexure-11 dated 19th Nove ovember, 2024 was submitted to the show ow cause notice and in so so far as the proceeding is concerned, the sam same is to be directed to b o be disposed of as per and in accordance wi with law providing a rea real opportunity to participate therein, sinc since, the petitioner canno not be removed in a manner which is contem templated being an elected ted representative. 4. Mr. Sing Singh, learned ASC for the State, on the other her hand, refers to the Cou Court’s order in W.P. (C) No.24866 of 2024 24 to the affidavit filed by by the intervener and claimed that the letter tter dated 30th August, 2024 024 of the Chief Construction Engineer, Lower wer Suktel Project and a co copy thereof has been received by the petitio itioner, as duly endorsed, d, which is on 23rd October, 2024. It is is further submitted by Mr Mr. Singh, learned ASC that the proceeding is is unable to be disposed ed of due to this Court’s interim order dat dated 21st November, 2024 024 and that apart, there is due compliance ce of the request received ed from the petitioner so revealed from the le e letter in view Annexure-8 8 to the affidavit of the intervener. Page age 2 of 4 5. Mr. Rat Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the inte intervener submits that the the petitioner has been allowed the opportun rtunity to reply to the show show cause notice being issued and in fact, the there is a response received ived, hence, there is no further compliance nee needed in view of the ord order in W.P.(C) No.24866 of 2024, theref erefore, a direction may pe y perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to to ensure disposal of the pr e proceeding initiated under Section 26 of the A he Act. 6. Conside sidering the reply of the petitioner as at Anne nexure-11 dated 19th Nove vember, 2024 and since receipt of the same me is not denied rather ac r acknowledged by Mr. Singh, learned ASC f C for the State, the Court, , in view of the proceeding under Section 26 26 of the Act, is of the v e view that the petitioner should be provid vided an opportunity to r o respond properly. The Court is of the furthe rther view that the letter da r dated 30th August, 2024 of the Chief Constr nstruction Engineer, Lower er Suktel Project and a copy of the same e having been received by by the petitioner as the same was requested f d for, the proceeding shou hould be disposed of as expeditiously as po possible. However, consid nsidering the fact that the disqualification is a is alleged on the basis of a a contract, which is being denied by the peti petitioner, the Court is of of the conclusion that all such defences sho should be made available t le to her before any such order passed in te terms of Section 26 of the the Act. In other words, opposite party No.2 .2 should therefore be dire directed to conclude the proceeding providing ng proper opportunity to to the petitioner to participate in the proc roceeding initiated for her er disqualification at the earliest preferably w y within a stipulated period iod. 7. Accordin rdingly, it is ordered. Page age 3 of 4 8. In the re e result, the writ petition stands disposed of of with a direction for the the petitioner to appear before opposite party arty No.2 on 24th Decembe mber, 2024, the date on which, the proceedin ding shall be taken up by by opposite party No.2 and thereafter, pro providing reasonable oppo portunity of hearing to her, to proceed to disp dispose of the same followe owed by a decision at the earliest preferably w y within a period eight wee eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this this order concluding the ex e exercise keeping view the observations made de herein above and in the the light of citations referred to. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2024 19:35:49 Page age 4 of 4