Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27285 (ORI)

Kamala Pujari v. State of Odisha

2026-01-30

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
Judgment : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition challenges the notice dated 25.09.2025 issued under Section 24(2)(c) and (d) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, in the absence of any prescribed Rules, and the consequential decision of the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur fixing 14.10.2025 at 11.00 A.M. for holding the no confidence meeting in the Gram Panchayat Office, Dahana. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) Pursuant to the election held in the year 2022 for the office of Sarpanch of Dahana Gram Panchayat in the district of Nabarangapur, the petitioner was elected by the mandate of the public by securing a majority over the contesting candidates and has since been discharging her duties as Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. (ii) A notice dated 25.09.2025 was issued by the Sub-Collector, Nabarangapur under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, fixing 14.10.2025 at 11.00 A.M. for holding a No Confidence Motion in the office of Dahana Gram Panchayat in respect of the petitioner, who was holding the office of Sarpanch. (iii) The notice dated 25.09.2025 was served upon the petitioner on 01.10.2025. No copy of the requisition or the resolution was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner accepted service of the notice with objection regarding compliance with the statutory requirements. (iv) Being aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 25.09.2025 for holding a No Confidence Motion under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) It was submitted that the notice dated 25.09.2025 for holding a No Confidence Motion under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 was served upon and accepted by the petitioner on 01.10.2025 under objection, as neither a copy of the requisition nor the proposed resolution was ever served upon the petitioner. (i) It was submitted that the notice dated 25.09.2025 for holding a No Confidence Motion under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 was served upon and accepted by the petitioner on 01.10.2025 under objection, as neither a copy of the requisition nor the proposed resolution was ever served upon the petitioner. (ii) It was further submitted that a plain reading of Section 24 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the legislature has consciously prescribed mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with before an elected representative under the Gram Panchayat Act can be unseated. The initiation of a no confidence motion must strictly conform to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 24(2) mandates that no meeting can be convened except on a valid requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Gram Panchayat along with a copy of the proposed resolution, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Upon receipt thereof, the Sub-Divisional Officer is required to issue notice to all members holding office along with copies of the requisition and resolution at least fifteen clear days prior to the date fixed for the meeting. (iii) It was submitted that on a bare reading of the impugned notice, confusion arises as to whether the same has been issued in purported compliance with Section 24(2)(c) or Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. In any event, the notice admittedly received on 01.10.2025 does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of fifteen clear days, nor was it accompanied by service of the requisition and the proposed resolution. (iv) It was submitted that due to non-service of the requisition and the proposed resolution, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to ascertain the allegations contained therein or to examine the validity and legality of the requisition as required under law. (v) It was further submitted that when a statute prescribes a particular procedure for doing an act, the same must be followed in the manner laid down, and any deviation therefrom vitiates the entire proceeding, particularly where the action entails serious civil consequences affecting an elected representative holding office by the mandate of the people. (v) It was further submitted that when a statute prescribes a particular procedure for doing an act, the same must be followed in the manner laid down, and any deviation therefrom vitiates the entire proceeding, particularly where the action entails serious civil consequences affecting an elected representative holding office by the mandate of the people. (vi) The petitioner further submitted that in the absence of any prescribed Rules framed by the State Government under Section 24(2) of the Act, the action of the Sub-Collector in proceeding with the No Confidence Motion is without jurisdiction and lacks legal competency. III.SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions: (i) It was submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable either in fact or in law and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as it seeks to stall a statutory and democratic process initiated by an overwhelming majority of the elected Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat. (ii) It was submitted that the petitioner’s challenge to the No Confidence Motion proceedings is wholly misconceived, hyper-technical, and contrary to the factual record, inasmuch as the entire process has been conducted in strict compliance with the provisions of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. (iii) According to the opposite parties, Dahana Gram Panchayat consists of twelve Ward Members, out of whom eleven Ward Members supported the requisition and the proposed resolution expressing no confidence against the petitioner. The requisition along with the signed resolution was submitted on 22.08.2025, and the authenticity of the signatures was duly verified by the Tahasildar, Nandahandi on 17.09.2025 and found to be genuine. (iv) It was submitted that upon receipt and verification of the requisition, the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur authorised the Tahasildar to preside over the special meeting, fixed 14.10.2025 as the date of the meeting, and issued notice dated 25.09.2025 strictly in accordance with Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. (v) The opposite parties specifically denied the allegation that the notice was served without copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution. (v) The opposite parties specifically denied the allegation that the notice was served without copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution. It was submitted that the notice along with the requisition and resolution was served upon the petitioner through multiple modes, including postal service, special messenger, physical service through the Panchayat Executive Officer, and by affixture at the petitioner’s residence as well as on the notice boards of the Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti. (vi) It was further submitted that the petitioner deliberately avoided service of notice, which necessitated service by affixture, and that service by affixture constitutes valid service in law when a party evades notice. Mere denial of receipt, according to the opposite parties, does not rebut the statutory presumption of service. (vii)On the issue of “fifteen clear days”, it was submitted that since the notice was issued on 25.09.2025 and the meeting was fixed on 14.10.2025, the statutory requirement stands fully satisfied. It was contended that for the purpose of computation of fifteen clear days, the relevant date is the date of issuance of notice and not the date of receipt, and therefore the petitioner’s contention to the contrary is legally untenable. (viii) It was further submitted that a No Confidence Motion is a statutory and democratic mechanism and not an adversarial proceeding, and that an office-bearer who has admittedly lost the confidence of the elected representatives cannot seek the protection of this Court to continue in office. (ix) The opposite parties also referred to the conduct of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner deliberately avoided receipt of notice, took contradictory stands with regard to service of documents, and such conduct disentitles the petitioner to any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (x) It was submitted that the special meeting was held on 14.10.2025, the proceedings thereof were duly forwarded to the competent authority, and the result of the No Confidence Motion has been withheld solely in obedience to the interim order passed by this Court. (xi) It was finally submitted that the entire procedure contemplated under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 has been duly followed by the competent authorities, no prejudice has been caused or demonstrated by the petitioner, and the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 5. (xi) It was finally submitted that the entire procedure contemplated under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 has been duly followed by the competent authorities, no prejudice has been caused or demonstrated by the petitioner, and the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the notice dated 25.09.2025 issued under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 for holding a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner satisfies the mandatory statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. 7. Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 governs removal of a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch by a vote of no confidence. While the provision recognises the democratic right of elected members to express want of confidence, it also incorporates procedural safeguards which are required to be complied with before such a motion can be acted upon. For the purpose of the present controversy, the relevant portion of Section 24 reads as follows: "24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch:- (1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a Resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, regarding want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch the Resolution shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the Resolution publish the same on his Notice-board and with effect from the date of such Publication the member holding the Office of Sarpanch or the Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated such Office. (2) In convening a meeting under Sub-Section (1) and in the conduct of business at such meeting the procedure shall be in accordance with such rules, as may be prescribed, subject however to the following provisions, namely: (a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting; (b) the requisition shall be addressed to the Sub-divisional Officer; (c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisition shall fix the date, hour and place of such meeting and give Notice of the same to all the members holding Office on the date of such Notice along with a Copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed; (d) the aforesaid Notice shall be sent by post under Certificate of posting and a Copy thereof shall be published at least seven days prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice board of the Samiti; (e) the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that the Notice has not been received by any member;...." 8. A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 24 makes it evident that the procedure for conducting a meeting for recording want of confidence is circumscribed by specific statutory conditions. Clause (a) mandates a valid requisition along with a copy of the proposed resolution, clause (b) requires such requisition to be addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, clause (c) obligates issuance of notice along with copies of the requisition and proposed resolution at least fifteen clear days prior to the meeting, clause (d) prescribes the mode of service and publication of notice, and clause (e) clarifies that mere non- receipt of notice by any member shall not invalidate the proceedings. The repeated use of the expression “shall” in clauses (a) to (d) makes it clear that compliance with these requirements is mandatory. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the notice convening the meeting for recording want of confidence was issued on 25.09.2025 and the meeting was fixed on 14.10.2025. The repeated use of the expression “shall” in clauses (a) to (d) makes it clear that compliance with these requirements is mandatory. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the notice convening the meeting for recording want of confidence was issued on 25.09.2025 and the meeting was fixed on 14.10.2025. Reckoned from the date of issuance of the notice, the interval between the two dates satisfies the statutory requirement of “at least fifteen clear days” as contemplated under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner that the said period is to be computed from the date of receipt of the notice cannot be accepted, as the statute does not so provide. 10. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution were not served along with the notice dated 25.09.2025, thereby violating the mandatory requirements under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24. The opposite parties, however, have asserted that the notice was accompanied by the requisition and the proposed resolution and that the same was served upon the petitioner through multiple modes, including postal service, physical service and affixture, after the petitioner allegedly avoided service. 11. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 is relevant in this context. The legislature has expressly provided that the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that notice has not been received by any member. The emphasis, therefore, is on issuance and service of notice in the manner prescribed under clause (d), and not on proof of actual receipt in every case. 12. From the materials placed on record, it appears that the requisition was signed by the requisite number of Ward Members, the signatures were verified, and the Sub-Collector proceeded to issue the notice fixing the date, hour and place of the meeting. The opposite parties have asserted compliance with the mode of service and publication prescribed under clause (d). Mere denial of receipt by the petitioner, in the absence of cogent material to rebut the presumption of service, is insufficient to hold that the mandatory requirements under Section 24(2)(a) to (d) stood violated. 13. The opposite parties have asserted compliance with the mode of service and publication prescribed under clause (d). Mere denial of receipt by the petitioner, in the absence of cogent material to rebut the presumption of service, is insufficient to hold that the mandatory requirements under Section 24(2)(a) to (d) stood violated. 13. With respect to the contention that the proceedings are vitiated due to absence of prescribed Rules under sub-section (2) of Section 24, this Court finds that the Act itself lays down a detailed procedural framework governing requisition, notice and consequences of a vote of no confidence. In the absence of any demonstrated inconsistency, the proceedings cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that separate Rules have not been framed, when the statute itself provides a complete procedural mechanism. 14. It is also to be borne in mind that a motion of no confidence is a statutory mechanism reflecting the collective will of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat. While strict compliance with statutory safeguards is mandatory, this Court does not sit in appeal over the merits of such a motion, and interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is confined to examining compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. V. CONCLUSION: 15. In light of Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and its application to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice dated 25.09.2025 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. The Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.