The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31072 of 2024 Nabanita Kapat Patra Petitioner …. Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Collector, Kandhamal & another …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 06.
Decision
ORDER 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the intervener and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-1 issued in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against him on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice issued as per Annexure-1 dated 29th November, 2024 was not accompanied with a copy of the resolution, hence, therefore, the same is a defective one and as such, the entire exercise is vitiated. While advancing such an argument, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in in Page 1 of 5 W.P.(C). No.20054 of 2019 (Damayanti Hansda Vrs. State of Odisha & others) dated 6th May, 2020 to contend that the notice i.e. Annexure-1 does not reveal any such resolution to have been received by the petitioner along with a copy of the requisition of opposite party No.2. The contention is that on a reading of Annexure-1 and the language employed therein, it has to be construed that a copy of the resolution was not sent along with Annexure-1 and therefore, in view of the decision (supra), the very initiation of the vote of no confidence in terms of Section 24(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) is legally untenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and quashed. 4. On the other hand, referring to the counter affidavit on record filed through opposite No.2, it is submitted by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State that the resolution was passed by 1/3rd of the total membership of the G.P. with clear intention to move the no confidence motion against the petitioner and in that connection, the requisition was received by opposite party No.2 and it was followed by the issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1, hence, therefore, there has been no error or illegality committed towards the same and hence, the challenge to the initiation of action under the Act cannot be questioned. 5. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the intervener supports the contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and further submits that the challenge to the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in law in view of the requisition received and in absence of any pleading of the writ Page 2 of 5 petition that no such resolution was ever passed as required under Section 24(2)(a) of the Act having been sent to opposite party No.2 and while contending so, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ananda Pradhan Vrs. Collector, Khurda and others AIR 2011 Ori 130. 6. As it is made to understand, a resolution was passed by the Ward Members against the petitioner, consequent upon which, the requisition was received by opposite party No.2. A copy of the requisition dated 8th October, 2024 received for the motion is at Annexure-2. The petitioner has claimed that a copy of the resolution should have been sent along with impugned notice dated 29th November, 2024 but since, it has not been received, on such a notice having been issued by opposite party No.2, the motion cannot be allowed to take place as it has to be in consonance with Section 24(2) (a) of the Act. But along with the copy of the requisition i.e. Annexure-2, the petitioner has produced the resolution dated 8th October, 2024. It is also made to understand that after the requisition was received, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued. Referring to the notice received by the petitioner by Post, it is contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for him that on a reading of the same, it does not reveal anywhere regarding a copy of the resolution to have been sent and refers to the expression ‘Baradipatra’ to mean a copy of the requisition and not resolution. In that connection, the decision in Damayanti Hansda (supra) has been relied upon, wherein, the lexicological meaning of the words and expressions, such as, Page 3 of 5 ‘ethi sahita alochya o prastabara nakal sanglagna karagala’ has been taken judicial notice of to reach at a conclusion that the notice issued therein was not accompanied with a resolution. But in the case at hand, that the language is that the requisition was received and notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner along with a ‘Baradipatra’. The Court is of the humble view that on a reading of the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1, it was sent to the petitioner along with a copy of the resolution. The Court further finds that at no point of time, the petitioner ever questioned having not received a copy of the resolution along with Annexure-1. The Court is of the view that the petitioner could have raised an objection before opposite party No.2 at any time before the motion and the date was fixed for the said purpose. That apart, this Court in Ananda Pradhan (supra) concluded that a clear pleading is necessary to claim absence of a motion by the G.P vitiating the entire proceeding. Having considered the above facts and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the counter of opposite party No.2, it is clear and conspicuous that a resolution was held on the date fixed by the Ward Members and it was followed by a requisition and upon receiving such requisition, opposite party No.2 said to have issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 accompanied with the copies of the resolution and requisition. Having said that, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the challenge to the initiation of action under Section 24(2) of the Act cannot be challenged by the petitioner on any such ground, much less for having not received a copy of the resolution along with Annexure-1. The Page 4 of 5 Court reiterates that there is no justiciable reason or any ground exists to interfere with the impugned notice issued by opposite party No.2. 7. Hence, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order dated 13th December, 2024 in I.A. No.16636 of 2024 is hereby vacated as a result. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 05-Aug-2025 12:16:23 Page 5 of 5