The High Court
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29340 of 2024 Karunakar Seth Petitioner Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Ms. U.R. Padhi, ASC Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Caveators) CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17.03.2025 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 11th November, 2024 as at Annexure-2 issued by opposite party No.3 for convening a special meeting for the no confidence motion initiated against him on the grounds inter alia that the same is in contravention of Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the G.P. in question, against whom, the vote of no confidence has been initiated with a requisition submitted to opposite party No.3, who, thereafter, issued the notice as per Annexure-2 for the special meeting to be convened for the said purpose. The
Facts
decision of opposite party No.3 is challenged on the ground that statutory period of 15 days as contemplated under Page 1 of 10 Section 14(2)(c) of the Act has not been complied with, as there was delay in dispatch of such notice. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of the G.P. situate in the district of Jharsuguda and he took over charge of the office on 10th March, 2022 but, thereafter, opposite party No.9, who is a Ward Member called the meeting on 7th October, 2024 to initiate a motion of no confidence against him on the ground of corruption and it ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-2. The further pleading is that the requisition was signed by eleven Ward Members though some of them were absent on 7th October, 2024 and in so far as the allegation of corruption is concerned, the same is a falsehood. The pleading is that opposite party No.3 received the requisition on 9th October, 2024 and issued the impugned notice on 11th November, 2024 for a meeting to be held on 27th November, 2024. The claim of the petitioner is that the notice under Annexure-2 was dispatched on 13th November, 2024 by registered post and was delivered to him on 16th November, 2024 hence, there was no clear 15 days available before the meeting was to be held, hence, the mandatory requirement of law in view of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act was not adhered to, therefore, the entire exercise upon receiving the requisition by opposite party No.3 stands vitiated. 3. The State filed the counter affidavit through opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and it is pleaded therein that there has been due compliance of all such provisions of the Act allowing 15 Page 2 of 10 days before the special meeting was to be held and the same is in consonance with Section 24(2)(c) thereof. It is further pleaded that the notice was dispatched in terms of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act and as in the instant case, when there was such compliance, the vote of no confidence with the issuance of a notice by opposite party No.3 cannot be challenged by the petitioner. Opposite party Nos.5 to 17 filed the counter affidavit and support the view that there has been proper compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. A reference has
Legal Reasoning
been made to the decisions of this Court including a case law in Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa & others 65(1988) CLT 122 with the pleading on record that 15 days clear notice was allowed before the special meeting was scheduled to be held, hence, there is no violation of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 5 to 17 and Ms. Padhi, learned ASC for the State. 5. The requisition was received by opposite party No.3 for the vote of no confidence initiated against the petitioner after a resolution was passed in that behalf. It is claimed that a copy of the resolution was not received by the petitioner along with the notice and requisition. But, in course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the challenge with a plea as to non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act with the submission that no clear 15 days’ time was allowed as contemplated under law. The Page 3 of 10 contention of Mr. Mishra learned counsel is that the notice was dispatched on 13th November, 2024 and was received by the petitioner on 16th November, 2024 and hence, 15 days is to be counted from the date of receipt of the same and since, it becomes less than the statutory period stipulated in Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, therefore, the action with the issuance of notice by opposite party No.3 cannot be sustained in law. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 5 to 17 submits that the law is well settled as decided by this Court in Sarat Padhi (supra) that the mode of service or the failure by any member to receive the notice at all or allowing him less than 15 clear days before the date of the meeting to be held is not to render such meeting invalid. Besides the above, referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2022(I) OLR 377, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel would further submit that the gap between the issuance of notice and date of meeting is directory in nature and not mandatory, a conclusion which has been reached at referring to the ratio decided in the case of Sarat Padhi. One more case law in Brundabati Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2015(II)CLR 906 is placed reliance on by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel to submit that the motion is not defeated nor the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-2 and for that matter, the entire exercise on any such ground as has been advanced by the petitioner. Page 4 of 10 7. Ms. Padhi, learned ASC for the State supports the contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 5 to 17 with the submission that there has been no irregularity or any illegality committed by opposite party No.3, who received the requisition from the Ward Members and thereafter, proceeded to fix up the date for the special meeting to be convened for the no confidence motion initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that law is no more res integra that the period of 15 days is directory in nature and delay in dispatch is no more fatal and since in the case at hand, the notice was immediately dispatched in the manner contemplated under Section 24(2)(d) of the Act and was received by the petitioner well before the special meeting was to be held, even with the availability of less than 15 days, there is no violation of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act and the no confidence motion is therefore not to fail and in the meantime, it has been held without the result of the same being published in view of the Court’s interim order dated 24th November, 2024 in I.A. No. 15627 of 2024. 8. As it appears, opposite party Nos. 5 to 17 moved the requisition for the no confidence motion against the petitioner and upon receiving the requisition, opposite party No.3 issued the notice. The said notice is challenged on account of non-compliance of 15 clear days statutorily required before the special meeting is held. It is not in denial that the notice was dispatched on 13th November, 2024, whereas, it is dated 11th November, 2024 and claims to have Page 5 of 10 been received by the petitioner on 16th November, 2024. As per the notice i.e. Annexure-2, 15 days period was allowed before the meeting was fixed. The question is, whether, such 15 days period is to be counted from 16th November, 2024? According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the very intent and purport of the law in place is that before the special meeting is convened, it should be intervened by a clear 15 days from the date of issuance of notice and since it was dispatched on 13th November, 2024 and received on 16th November, 2024 there is no compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. 9. In Sarat Padhi (supra), the Full Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider and examine the provisions of the Act vis-(cid:224)-vis notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act and observed in the following words such as: “18. On a circumspection of the various authorities discussed above dealing with the analogous provisions in different statutes. I would now proceed to record my own conclusions: The scheme of the notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) may be divided into three parts-(i) requirement of giving the notice,(ii) fixing the margin of time between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting, and, (iii) service of notice on the members, I am of the view, which is also conceded by the learned two parts, that Advocate General, namely, the duty of issue the notice and the margin of clear 15 days between the date of the the first Page 6 of 10 notice and the date of the meeting, are mandatory. In other words, if there is any breach of these two conditions, then the meeting will be invalid without any question of prejudice. But the third condition, i.e. the mode of service or the failure by any member to receive the notice at all or allowing him less than 15 clear days before the date of the meeting, will not render the meeting invalid. This requirement is only directory. This is also based on a sound public policy as in that event any delinquent Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch can frustrate the consideration of the resolution of non-confidence against him by tactfully delaying or avoiding the service of the notice on him and thus frustrate the holding of the meeting. The legislation has also accordingly taken care to provide in unequivocal terms a provision to obviate such contingencies by incorporating clause (e) to sub-section (2) of section 24.” 10. In the aforesaid decision, the view expressed in Debaraj Mallika Vrs. Collector, Puri & Others, 45(1978) CLT 313 received disapproval which was to the effect that the whole of the provisions under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act to be directory in nature but held and concluded that such service of notice with 15 days’ time is mandatory. Similarly, in Shri Ajaya Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha 121 (2016) CLT 597, this Court concluded that the date on which the notice is posted is immaterial and therein, the decision in the case of Sarat Padhi (supra) was placed reliance on. Referring to the case laws, such as, Smt. Heeramani Munda Vrs. The Collector, Keonjhar & others 99(2205) CLT 180 and Nilambar Majhi Vrs. Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Page 7 of 10 Panchayati Raj Department & others 2005(II) CLR 493, this Court in Brundabati Pradhan (supra) held that 15 days’ notice as contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is to be counted excluding the date of issuance of notice and the date of meeting fixed for the no confidence motion. Reading of the decisions (supra), the Court finds that while complying with Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, requirement of giving notice fixing the margin of time between the date of such notice and the meeting to be mandatory in nature and not the service of notice in the manner stipulated therein. If there is any breach of the above mandatory conditions, then the meeting shall have to be held as vitiated without any question of prejudice. The last of the conditions regarding the mode of service or failure by any member to receive such notice without 15 clear days available from the date of its issuance and the meeting, the same is not to render such meeting invalid. In other words, the said requirement is only directory in nature. In a recent judgment of this Court in Jayaram Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha & Others dated 19th February, 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 26726 of 2024, such a view was reiterated. The question is, if any such delay in dispatch is questioned, the Court is to consider as to what prejudice it caused to any of the Ward Members or particularly, the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch as the case may be against whom the vote of no confidence was initiated. The settled law is that in absence of any prejudice even with a delay in dispatch of the notice giving less than 15 days margin is not to invalidate the exercise and the action for the motion. In case of any such prejudice due to delay and Page 8 of 10 dispatch of the notice, the same has to be demonstrated. Mere delay and dispatch of the notice with intimation to all concerned for the special meeting by itself is not sufficient to claim that the action is invalid. The mandate of law is to allow 15 days’ period before the meeting is held and the same is to be counted from the date of notice signed and not from the date of dispatch or receipt of the same by the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. In the present case, the petitioner had the knowledge about the vote of no confidence and the resolution for such motion, he having received requisition from opposite party No.3 with reasonable time in hand. Even assuming that the notice was received on 16th November, 2024, there was sufficient time left for him to respond. As it has been held that prejudice is to be prima facie shown and proved and in the case of the petitioner, the same is not demonstrated. Keeping in view the settled law in Sarat Padhi (supra) and followed thereafter in other decisions referred to herein before, the inescapable conclusion of the Court is that compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act with regard to the mode of service of notice even with less than 15 days as a margin between the date of notice and meeting cannot be a ground to challenge the action, especially when, there is no evidence of any such prejudice being caused to the petitioner. In other words, considering the plea advanced by the petitioner, reply and response of the State besides opposite party Nos. 5 to 17 and in view of the settled position of law, it has to be held that there is no illegality committed by opposite party No.3 with the issuance of notice under Annexure-2 for the vote of no Page 9 of 10 confidence initiated against the petitioner which is in compliance of law as contemplated under the Act. 11. Hence, it is ordered. 12. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order in I.A. No. 15627 of 2024 dated 26th November, 2024 is vacated as a result. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 18-Mar-2025 12:01:21 Page 10 of 10