The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK AFR W.P.(C) No.29708 of 2024 Sidhanta Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P. K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.7 to 10 and 12 to 23 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:16.07.2025 DATE OF hUDGMENT:13.10.2025 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the impugned notice dated 16th November, 2024 with the initiation of no confidence motion declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority and contrary to the provisions of law and in particular, Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the grounds stated therein. 2. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch in the year, 2022. The Gram Panchayat is consisting of eighteen Ward Page 1 of 11 Members. According to the petitioner, the private opposite parties submitted a requisition for a vote of no confidence against him and the same was received on 9th February, 2024 by the concerned Sub-Collector and the Collector, Cuttack by Post. It is pleaded that the Ward Members moved a resolution for the no confidence motion signed on 1st October, 2024. It is claimed that the Naib Sarpanch, namely, opposite party No.8 sent the resolution and requisition to the authorities concerned as per Annexure-2 series, consequent upon which, opposite party No.4 issued the impugned notice on 16th November, 2024. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he received the notice on 20th November, 2024 with a copy of the requisition signed by opposite party No.8 with intimation that the proposed no confidence motion to be held on 6th December, 2024. The contention of the petitioner is that he has completed more than three years serving as the Sarpanch without any interruption but the cause of action arose with the requisition and notice received by him and while claiming so, copies of the notice and postal envelope at Annexure-1 series are referred to. The claim is that the petitioner was about to register his grievance for having not received the proposed resolution on 22nd November, 2024, when he was served with notice dated 16th November, 2024 along with one page letter addressed to the Collector, Cuttack signed by opposite party No.8 only, in total, four pages of papers and hence, the endorsement was made thereon by him and in Page 2 of 11 support such claim, Annexure-2 series is placed reliance on. The further contention is that the requisition dated 8th February, 2024 was sent by Post and therefore, having accepted the requisition, opposite party No.4 did not follow the mandatory requirements of Section 24(2) of the Act. 3. The counter affidavit is filed by the State through opposite party No.4 and the same is gone through, according to which, mandatory provisions of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act with the issuance of notice to the petitioner and others have been duly complied with the pleading therein that on 1st October, 2024, out of eighteen Ward Members, seventeen of them submitted a representation for no confidence motion against the petitioner and it was followed by a requisition. A copy of the so called representation received from the Ward Members is at Annexure-A/4 series. It is further pleaded therein that opposite party No.4 entrusted the BDO concerned to enquire into the matter and to submit a detail report with a letter dated 3rd October, 2024 at Annexure-B/4, in response to which, such report was received with a finding that the Ward Members expressed their dissatisfaction against the petitioner making allegations thereby reposing no confidence on him to run the GP. The said report is at Annexure-C/4 and upon its receipt, notice was issued to the petitioner and others on 16th November, 2024 for the meeting to be held on 6th December, 2024 and accordingly, in view of Section 24(2)(f) of the Act, the Page 3 of 11 Tahasildar, Aathagarh was authorized to preside it over. It is pleaded that after the signature of opposite party No.4 on the notice, on 16th November, 2024, it was sent to all concerned and through Registered Post on 18th November, 2024 and was duly received by the petitioner on 20th November, 2024 as per the Postal Tracking Report at Annexure-E/4 and therefore, there has been compliance of the provisions of the Act, while dealing with the requisition.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2022(I) OLR 377. Admittedly, the proposed resolution and requisition are to accompany the notice to be received by the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch against whom the motion is proposed. In Karunakar Seth Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2025 (1) ILR CUT 1187, it is held by this Court that compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act with regard to mode of service of notice even with less than fifteen days Page 8 of 11 remaining before the special meeting cannot be a ground to challenge the action, especially when, there is no evidence of any such prejudice being caused after having taken reference of earlier case laws cited therein including Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa & others 65 (1988) CLT 122. It has been held by this Court in catena of decisions that a notice without clear 15 from the date it is signed and the meeting to be held for the motion is definitely fatal and such non-compliance defeats the action even in absence of any prejudice being shown. If in case, notice is received with some amount of delay, the motion cannot be frustrated on such ground. It is to be reiterated that prejudice in receiving such notice with a delay shall have to be demonstrated. The real intent and purport behind Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is that the decision for the proposed motion is to be informed in advance to the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch to whom it is intended and other members so that there is a timely response received from each and every one for a debate during the meeting convened by the Sub-Collector. The mandatory compliance is in the sending of the resolution and requisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act and intimation to the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch with a notice by the authority concerned allowing a margin of fifteen days cannot be dispensed with. 14. Regard being had to the settled position of law laid down by this Court in Sarat Padhi (supra) to the effect that Page 9 of 11 the scheme of the notice contemplated therein, the duty in the issuance of notice with a margin of clear fifteen days between the date when it is signed and meeting to be mandatory and not the modes of service or failure by any members to receive the notice at all is not to render such meeting invalid as the law is based on the sound public policy as it may be frustrated by delaying or avoiding receipt of notice and that, therefore, the legislation has taken care of to obviate any such contingencies by incorporating Section 24(2)(e) of the Act, the irresistible conclusion of the Court in the case of the petitioner is that he received the notice and has had the knowledge about the meeting fixed for the motion and has been in no way prejudiced. In so far as the copies of the resolution and requisition not to have been served on the petitioner as has been pleaded, notwithstanding any such endorsement on Annexure-1, in view of the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.2 to 4, the Court is not inclined to believe it as it is quite unusual for opposite party No.4 in failing to comply the same in response to the requisition. 15. In the meantime, the motion has been held on the date fixed but in view of the Court’s order in I.A. No.15932 of 2024, the result of the same has been withheld. The Court is of the further conclusion that the intention of the Ward Members has been clear and conspicuous and it was to propose vote of no confidence against the petitioner and Page 10 of 11 there has been due compliance of the provisions of the Act for having received the proposed resolution cleared by the quorum necessary and signed by the Ward Members in the requisition (though styled as representation but essentially a request for action vis-a-vis the proposed motion) having been received by opposite party No.4, who complying the formalities as required proceeded to issue notice for the special meeting to be held on the date fixed. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the action of opposite party No.4 in absence of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner having received the notice either by Post or by such other means within few days from the date of the notice signed. Mere delay in dispatch of notice or receipt of the same by any of the Ward Members including the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch is not to invalidate the motion, inasmuch as, the same is saved in view of Section 24(2)(e) of the Act. Thus, it is concluded that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice as at Annexure-1 on any of grounds advanced. 16. Hence, it is ordered.
Arguments
4. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.7 to 10 and 12 to 23. 5. No one appears for opposite party No.11. 6. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an elected Sarpanch is not to be removed without proper compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the action was initiated by opposite party No.4 upon receiving a representation and in so far as the notice issued and dispatched is concerned, it has been by Post and delay has taken place in receiving such notice by the petitioner. The contention is that the proposed resolution and requisition have not been received by the petitioner in view of the endorsement on Annexure-2. Furthermore, it is submitted by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise is vitiated for such non-compliance. That apart, it is contended that the resolution is unacceptable Page 4 of 11 in view of Section 213(1) of the Rules of Business and again there has been non-compliance of the Act as the resolution is not in accordance therewith and in terms thereof. The petitioner has questioned that not only the requisition was not properly received as required under law but also there is delay in service of notice on him by not complying Section 24(2) of the Act. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel submits that the notice has been sent by Post on 18th November, 2024 and received by the petitioner three days thereafter and hence, while computing the statutory period, it falls short of 15 days. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties would submit that the Ward Members are the signatories of the resolution and it was followed by the requisition received by opposite party No.4 on 1st October, 2024. The contention is that there is no irregularity committed by the learned Sub-Collector, who issued the notice for the motion and rightly initiated the action following the procedure prescribed under law. It is submitted that the requisition contained signatures of the Ward Members and therefore, the claim that it was signed only by opposite party No.8 is factually incorrect. It is further claimed that the Ward Members lost confidence on the petitioner and therefore, the vote no confidence was proposed and hence, the requisition and the same is not to be treated as a representation though styled as such. It is Page 5 of 11 further stated that the requisition is signed by 17 Ward Members, whereas, the proposed resolution carries signatures of 14 of them and therefore, upon receiving such requisition, opposite party No.4 followed the procedure and issued the notice as a result. 8. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State submits that there is no any irregularity or illegality committed by opposite party No.4 and hence, the challenge to the impugned notice at Annexure-2 is not to be entertained. 9. In course of hearing, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted upon the provisions of the Act and the need for the compliance in connection with the no confidence motion. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties referred to a decision in Sebati Pujari Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.A. No.363 of 2016 decided on 12th September, 2016 to submit that the resolution is as per law and also the requisition, since 1/3rd Ward Members expressed their willingness for the no confidence motion against the petitioner and such an intention is clearly evident therefrom. 10. In Sebati Pujari (supra), a Division Bench of this Court discussed the meaning attached to the word ‘resolution’ with reference to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (4th Edition), which is to the effect that something resolved or determined upon or when a motion Page 6 of 11 put before a meeting has been agreed upon. The above decision is relied on by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties to convey that there has been a resolution as the Ward Members unanimously resolved to go for a vote of no confidence against the petitioner. 11. No doubt, the resolution shall have to be in conformity with the Rules of Business and as per Rule 13(1) thereof and not to contain defamatory statements nor any such facts referable to the conduct and character of a person in private capacity and must have a direct bearing to the discretionary and obligatory functions of the Gram Panchayat. On a reading of Annexures-1 and 2, the Court finds that the allegations have been made against the petitioner in connection with matters discharging duties and responsibilities by him as the Sarpanch. It has been alleged that the petitioner is involved in illegal activities and since last eight months prior to the resolution, no meeting has been called by him. The grievance of the Ward Members is revealed from Annexures-1 and 2 and it is suggested that all of them lost confidence in the petitioner, who failed in discharging the functions as a Sarpanch, hence, nothing is there even to remotely suggest that any allegations have been made attributing things in his personal capacity and therefore, the contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel with reference to Rule 13(1) of the Rules of a Business is liable to be rejected. Page 7 of 11 12. It has been reiterated time and again that the compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is mandatory, while dealing with a requisition received for no confidence motion. It is equally settled law that the Sub-Collector concerned is to issue a notice with clear fifteen days in between the date when the notice is signed and meeting to be held for the motion. Such a provision must have to be complied with. It is also settled that the modes of service to be directory in nature and non-receipt of the same by the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch, as the case may be, on any such ground or for having received the same any time left with less than 15 days is not to invalidate the motion. 13. In the case of Kusum Deep Vrs. State of Odisha and another 2025(I) CLR 1231, this Court held and concluded that delay in dispatching the notice or receipt of the same by the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, whosoever, is not to annul the action. A plea of prejudice is to be examined, in case, it is advanced as further held therein referring to a decision of
Decision
17. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Balaram (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 11 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 15-Oct-2025 19:24:21