p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23138 of 2025 Satyabhama Dei …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -Versus- SState of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA Mr. Gopal Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate (O.P.Nos.5 to 17) Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate (O.P. Nos.18 & 19) CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 30.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.02.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 8th August, 2025 as at Annexure-1 issued by opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion to convene a special meeting for the same initiated against her being the Sarpanch of Daleisahi GP under Bolagarh Block in the district of Khurda scheduled to be held on 3rd September, 2025 on the grounds inter alia that Section 24(2)(a) & (c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) not to have been complied with and therefore, the action stands vitiated and hence, it is liable to be interfered with and quashed. 2. As pleaded on record, the petitioner is the Sarpanch of the GP in question which consists of 18 Wards with 17 Ward Members functioning at present and 12 of them had a p. 2 meeting on 25th July, 2025 presided over by the Naib- Sarpanch and said to have passed a resolution with a decision to remove her from the post by convening a meeting for a no confidence motion and accordingly sent a requisition as at Annexure-2 on the same day to opposite party No.3. Subsequent to the resolution as per Annexure-3 and upon receiving the requisition i.e. Annexure-2, as it is pleaded further, opposite party No.3 sent a letter dated 29th July, 2025 to opposite party No.4 to ascertain the authenticity of the signatures of the Ward Members, who signed thereon and thereafter, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued to convene the meeting for the motion on 3rd September, 2025. 3. According to the petitioner, the notice i.e. Annexure-1 was not accompanied with the copies of the resolution and requisition, hence, there is non-compliance of Section 24(2) (a) & (c) of the Act. It is contended that the requisition has been signed by 17 Ward Members but as per Annexure-2, signatures of 12 are revealed and therefore, the same has become invalid. As per the petitioner, the notice was not enclosed with the proposed resolution and requisition to be passed in the special meeting for the vote of no confidence and therefore, opposite party No.3 committed an error by not following due procedure of law. It is alleged by the petitioner that there has been no such resolution on the date when the meeting was claimed to be held by the Ward Members evident from the information supplied to her under the RTI Act as per Annexure-4 series. The contention is that in absence of the proposed resolution and requisition sent along p. 3 with the notice by opposite party No.3, it is not in accordance with law and hence, liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the State filed the counter affidavit through opposite party No.3 and denied all the claims of the petitioner and the contentions advanced with a pleading that due process has been followed and in terms of Section 24(2) (a) & (c) of the Act, the notice was issued as per Annexure-1. It is pleaded that 12 Ward Members singed the resolution and submitted the requisition to opposite party No.3, who after necessary verification, acted upon the same and fixed the date, time and place for the special meeting and the motion and as such, there has been no illegality committed and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner to the counter of opposite party No.3. No separate counter affidavits have been filed by the private opposite parties. 6. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos.5 to 17 and Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.18 & 19. 7. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no compliance of Section 24(2)(a) & (c) of the Act, inasmuch as, the copies of the proposed resolution and requisition have not been sent along with the notice and duly served on the petitioner and hence, the entire exercise is void ab initio. The contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel is that p. 4 unless such compliance is ensured at the time of issuance of notice, the action for the no confidence motion stands invalidated. In support of the plea advanced, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel cited the following decisions, such as, Smt. Heeramani Munda Vrs. The Collector, Keonjhar and others (2005) 99 CLT 180; Nilambar Majhi Vrs. Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Panchayat Raj Deptt. & others 2005 SCC Online Ori 247; Smt. Kamala Tiria Vrs. State of Orissa and others AIR 2001 Ori 67; Muktamanjari Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.19065 of 2009 decided on 8th July, 2010; and Prahallad Dalei Vrs. State of Odisha and others (2015) 119 CLT 720. The contention is that procedure as per Section 24(2) of the Act has not been followed in letter and spirit and therefore, the impugned notice at Annexure-1 cannot stand the scrutiny of law and thus, the entire action has to go, even though, in the meantime, the special meeting was convened by opposite party No.3. 8. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State refers to the counter affidavit and submits that the action of opposite party No.3 is perfectly justified and the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued in accordance with law upon receiving the requisition i.e. Annexure-2 based on the decision vide resolution i.e. Annexue-3 and all the Ward Members including the petitioner had been served with the notices sent along with the copies of resolution and requisition and therefore, it cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that 12 War Members signed the resolution and not all 17 and the same is revealed from the record and therefore, the claim of p. 5 the petitioner on any such ground alleging discrepancy vis-à- vis resolution i.e. Annexure-3 is unacceptable. The contention of Mr. Swain, learned AGA is that the Ward Members in majority lost confidence in the petitioner and hence, passed the resolution and it was followed by the requisition i.e. Annexure-2, which was the foundation for opposite party No.3 to issue the notice and rightly, fixed a date for the special meeting, which was ultimately convened and hence, such exercise being in accordance with the provisions of the Act cannot be questioned. 9. Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos.5 to 17 would submit that 12 Ward Members, who are more than 1/3rd of the total strength of the GP, submitted the requisition along with a copy of the resolution dated 25th July, 2025 and accordingly, opposite party No.3 acted upon the same and held the special meeting. It is further submitted that such meeting was held on 3rd September, 2025, in which, 16 Ward Members participated including the petitioner out of 17, in total and the result was declared on 18th October, 2025 and out of them, 14 Ward Members voted against her and it has been duly notified by opposite party No.2 and refers to a copy of the notification (No.860 dated 8th October, 2025). The contention is that there is no illegality committed by opposite party No.3, who all followed the procedure prescribed under law and even sought for the authentication of the signatures appearing on the requisition and accomplished it with the assistance of opposite party No.4 and upon a satisfaction reached at that the requisition is genuine, proceeded to fix a date for the motion and finally, it p. 6 was held on the date fixed, hence, impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 cannot be challenged and set at naught on any such grounds advanced from the side of the petitioner. 10. On perusal of Annexure-2, it is revealed that requisite number of Ward Members signed the same and it has been in accordance with Section 24 of the Act and therefore, rightly, entertained by opposite party No.3. It is not that all the 17 Ward Members of the GP signed the requisition. No any discrepancy is revealed from Annexures-2 and 3. It can be said that 1/3rd of the total members of the GP had the resolution i.e. Annexure-3 and submitted the requisition to opposite party No.3. The plea of the petitioner on such ground alleging discrepancy in so far as the resolution and requisition is concerned cannot be entertained and hence, liable to be rejected. 11. The question relates to the exercise of power under Section 24 (2) of the Act by opposite party No.3 and whether he in any way erred while issuing the notice i.e. Annexure-1 for the special meeting to be held vis-à-vis the motion. Law is well settled that Section 24(2)(a) & (c) of the Act are to be complied with which means the Sub-Divisional Officer shall have to send the copies of the resolution and requisition to the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, against whom, a decision has been taken by the Ward Members of the GP for a motion to remove him from the post. It is claimed by the petitioner that the notice i.e. Annexure-1 had not accompanied the resolution and requisition. The notice as per Annexure-1 is signed by opposite party No.3 on 8th p. 7 August, 2025 indicating therein that the no confidence motion was received from the Ward Members and accordingly, fixed 3rd September, 2025 as the date for the special meeting to be held. Furthermore, clear 15 days was allowed before the meeting was convened. Therefore, if in case, notice as per Annexure-1 was received by the petitioner, there was plenty of time for her to respond to the same. According to Section 24 (2)(a) & (c) of the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of requisition shall give notice of the same to all the members holding the office on the date of such notice along with a copy of the requisition. Apart from that, the aforesaid notice shall be sent by Post under Certificate of Posting and a copy thereof to be published in the notice board at least 7 days prior to the date fixed for the meeting. In the case at hand, opposite party No.3 said to have sent notice to all the Ward Members and in support of such claim, information regarding the postal service as at Annexure-D/3 to the counter affidavit is referred to. No member of the GP raised any question having not received the copies of the resolution and requisition when the notice for the motion was served at the instance of opposite party No.3. The petitioner did not raise any objection either immediately after receiving the notice. The notice is said to have been sent through registered post to all the Ward Members. When it is pleaded by opposite party No.3 that the notices had accompanied the resolution and requisition, it is for the petitioner to demonstrate as to how such notice was received without the same. A bald claim with any such plea of having not received the resolution and requisition by the p. 8 petitioner without any such material on record to demonstrate cannot be believed. It is not admitted anywhere by opposite party No.3 that the notice was not served on the Ward Members. The postal service with all such information as at Annexure-D/3 sufficiently indicates that notices have been sent to all the Ward Members and received by them in time well before the special meeting was convened. According to the Court, there has been no prejudice as such caused to the petitioner as the notice was served on her in time and before 3rd September, 2025 and not only that, she herself participated in the motion. 12. In Smt. Heeramani Munda (supra), this Court taking judicial notice of its earlier decision in Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa and others 1988 (I) OLR 80 and the case law in K. Narasimhiah Vrs. H.C. Singri Gowda AIR 1966 SC 330 held that clear 15 days is necessary for the special meeting to convene and to discuss the motion excluding the date of notice and the date of the meeting fixed. In the case of the petitioner, there has been clear 15 days allowed in between the date when the notice i.e. Annexure-1 was signed and the date of the meeting i.e. 3rd September, 2025. Law is well settled that 15 days of notice is not to be counted on and from the date when it has been delivered. If there is undue delay in service of the notice and as a result, any of the members and for that matter, the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, whosoever, against whom the motion has been initiated claims prejudice, it shall have to be examined by a Court. Unless, it is demonstrated that less than 15 days was left for the reason that the notice was served with much delay and as p. 9 a result, the participation in the motion was meaningless, it has to be held that there is compliance of Section 24(2) of the Act. The other decision in Nilambar Majhi (supra) is also with regard to the compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. As regards the decision in Smt. Kamala Tiria (supra), this Court in absence of any such proper resolution and communicated, the action initiated under Section 39 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 was held as invalid. The above decisions do not assist the petitioner in any way especially when the Court is not inclined to accept her plea that the notice was not sent with the resolution and requisition. The Court is, rather, of the conclusion that opposite party No.3 sent the notices to all the Ward Members including the petitioner, who had proper knowledge about the motion to be held on 3rd September, 2025 and therefore, there is due compliance of Section 24(2) of the Act. In Prahallad Dalei (supra), the notice did not accompany a copy of the requisition and under such circumstances, this Court interfered with the exercise for the motion being contrary to the materials available on record. Considering the case laws cited from the side of the petitioner, which are not elaborately discussed and submission of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos.5 to 17 supported by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.18 & 19 besides Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, the Court reaches at an irresistible conclusion that there is no any wrong or illegality committed by opposite party No.3, while initiating the exercise for the motion upon receiving the requisition in view p. 10 of the decision by resolution i.e. Annexure-3 of the Ward Members, who are the signatories to the same. 13. Accordingly, it is ordered. 14. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 1st September, 2025 stands vacated. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer