IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1383 of 2025 Kabita Sa …. Appellant Mr. Jiban Ranjan Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA Mr. Pratik Nayak, Advocate for Respondent No.5 CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 21.08.2025 01. 1. The instant appeal arises from an order dated 18th July, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.8567 of 2025, by which the direction was passed upon the opposite party/respondent no.1-authority to freshly consider the revocation/suspension in the light of the allegations made against Sarapanch within the period specified therein with the consequences to follow in the event of its non-compliance. The respondent no.1 has not come up in appeal assailing the aforesaid order, but opposite party no.5, the complainant in the writ petition, has filed the instant appeal with the innocuous prayer that it would not be possible for the said respondent no.1 to decide the matter within four weeks as stipulated therein. 2. The facts emanating from the record raise the serious issues pertaining to removal/suspension of the Sarpanch elected with the majority votes on the ground that he failed to convene three consecutive meetings. Section 115(6)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 provides that if the Sarpanch has failed to convene any meeting of the Grama Panchayat within a period of three continuous months, the Collector after making such enquiry as he deems fit and upon forming an opinion, may pass an order removing the Sarpanch from office and also declare the Sarapanch ineligible for election as a member for a period not exceeding one year. On the allegation that the Sarapanch has miserably failed to convene the meeting within a period of three continuous months, a proceeding was initiated and removal order was passed, which was challenged before the State Government, but no interference was made with the categorical observation that since the criminal offence is allegedly committed by the Sarapanch, it does not warrant recall of the order of removal passed by the Collector. The said order was challenged in the writ petition by the writ petitioner/respondent no.5 and by the impugned order, the Single Bench directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Panchayat Raj and Drinking Water to decide the matter within a specified time. The said opposite party no.1 of the writ petition has not challenged the said order that the time stipulated therein is too scanty, but the complainant against the writ petitioner came to file the instant writ appeal taking a plea that the said Authority might not have been able to decide the cause within such short time. The said authority has not come up before us challenging the said order in this regard and, therefore, the appellant cannot espouse the cause nor should be so benevolent for the said opposite party no.1 that he might have faced lot of difficulties in complying the order passed by the Single Bench within the time stipulated therein. 3. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant appeal, which is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer