Pramod Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7026 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pramod Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others on 15 April, 2025

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.A. No.3473 of 2024

Pramod Kumar Sahu                                      ....                 Appellant


                                       -Versus-

State of Odisha and others                             ....             Respondents



Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellant               : Mr. Suryakanta Dash, Advocate

For Respondents             : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Addl. Govt. Advocate

CORAM:
                HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                           AND
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 15th April, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The order of the single Bench is assailed in the instant intra-

Court appeal on twin grounds. Firstly, the resolution taken in a meeting

held on the requisition of one-third members of the Gram Panchayat

bears the date i.e., 22nd October, 2024 although the date of the

requisition of the meeting alleged to have been held was 20th October,

2024. Secondly, the letter issued to the Sub-Divisional Officer under

Section-24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (OGP) Act, 1964 does not

accompany the resolution which was admittedly taken on 22nd October,

2024 and, therefore, the entire decision taken thereupon is palpably in

contravention to the provisions contained in the aforementioned Act.

2. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid two legal points

canvassed before us, a prelude to the litigation is required to be

adumbrated. Pursuant to the election of Sarpanch held in the year 2022,

the appellant was elected as Sarpanch of Gaiagaon Gram Panchayat

under Kalahandi District and since thereafter continued to discharge

such duties entrusted upon him both under the law and by the peoples

of the said Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, on the basis of the

allegations having made against some of the members of the said Gram

Panchayat, an inquiry was conducted under the Orissa Gram Panchayat

(Amendment) Act, 1994 with regard to their disqualification.

Subsequently, the appellant communicated to the District Panchayat

Officer the complaint against some of the members of the said Gram

Panchayat including that some of them were not attending the meeting

since last three months.

3. Amidst the pendency of such decision for disqualification of

some of the members, the appellant received a notice/letter dated 11th

November, 2024 issued by the Sub-Collector which contained the

letter/requisition dated 20th October, 2024 issued by some of the Ward

Members along with the resolution alleged to have been passed on 22nd

October, 2024 to the effect that a special meeting would be held on 30th

November, 2024 at 11 AM in the Gram Panchayat Conference Hall for

consideration of an agenda pertaining to no confidence having mooted

against the appellant.

4. Immediately after receiving the said notice, the approach was

made to this Court impugning the letter of the official, communicating

the date, time and the place of convening the meeting on the basis of the

resolution taken by some of the members of the said Gram Panchayat

flagging an issue of no confidence against the appellant.

5. The said writ petition was initially entertained and by the

impugned order, disposed of with the following observations:

"9. Perused the resolution as at Annexure-2. Such resolution has been signed by the members present at the meeting and by the President on 22nd October, 2024. It is prima facie made to appear that the meeting was held on 20th October, 2024 and the members as well as the President unanimously agreed to initiate the vote of confidence against the petitioner and thereafter, submitted the requisition to opposite party No.3, upon

which, the motion was fixed to 30th November, 2024. The Court considering the submission of Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner and regard being had to the resolution dated 22nd October, 2024 in respect of the meeting held on 20th October, 2024 and the unanimous decision for having lost the confidence in the petitioner and therefore, to proceed against him as per Section 24 of the Act, no case is made out for interference. As far as disqualification of some of the members to the meeting is concerned, as a view has been expressed earlier in W.P.(C) No.26771 of 2024 reiterating the conclusion reached at in Ananda Pradhan (supra), the Court is of the further view that the proceeding under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act are quite distinct, independent and mutually exclusive, hence, therefore, on such ground, as has been advanced at present, the motion to be held on 30th November, 2024 cannot be interfered with.

10. At this juncture, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Court is not inclined to intervene with motion to be held on 30th November, 2024, then it should be directed to be subject to the result of the decision by opposite party No.2 with regard to the disqualification pending against some of the members, who are the signatories of the resolution i.e. Annexure-2.

However, considering the law decided in Ananda Pradhan (supra) and response received from Mr. Pati,

learned counsel for the opposite party No.10 as well as Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State, the Court is of the view that the motion is to take place and any such cause of action which would arise later to the disqualification in terms of Section 26 of the Act, action to follow accordingly with the inevitable consequences prescribed under law."

6. Mr. Suryakanta Dash, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant audaciously submits that the documents being Annexure-2

and 3 to the writ petition would manifestly indicate that there was no

resolution taken on 20th October, 2024 as the resolution bears the date

of 22nd October, 2024 and, therefore, there is a clear violation of the

provisions contained under Section-24 of the said Act. Mr. Dash further

submits that the law mandates the annexation of the resolution along

with notice inviting the meeting to be held and conducted by the Sub-

Divisional Officer which apparently does not appear to be followed

which would be abundantly from the fact that the resolution bears the

date i.e., 22nd October, 2024. Mr. Dash vociferously submits that the

notice to the Sub-Divisional Officer issued by the President is also

infirm and not in consonance with the statutory provisions having

signed by a single person and not by all the persons who requisitioned

for convening a meeting and, therefore, the moment the foundation is

found to be illegal, all consequential steps taken thereupon would also

liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the State-respondents refutes the contention of

the appellant that there is any departure from the statutory provisions;

rather it is submitted that the resolution was annexed to the notice

issued by the requisitionist to the Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore,

the contention of the appellant is factually incorrect. Mr. Dash, learned

AGA vehemently submits that the resolution was taken on the date of

the meeting having convened by the requisitionist i.e., 20th October,

2024 and the resolution even if it bears the date i.e., 22nd October, 2024,

it is a decision taken in a meeting held on 20th October, 2024 and,

therefore, it complies the requirements contemplated under Section-24

of the said Act. Mr. Dash, learned AGA further submits that the

President has forwarded the letter containing the resolution taken by the

requisitionist on 20th October, 2024 which is also in conformity with the

statutory requirements.

8. On the conspectus of the aforesaid stand having taken by the

respective counsels, the points which emerged in the instant case as

succinctly quoted in the opening paragraph of the instant judgment are

required to be decided on the parameters of the law applicable in this

regard.

9. It would be apposite and profitable to quote the relevant

provisions i.e., Section-24 of the OGP Act, 1964 before we venture to

decide the aforesaid points:

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 requisititon 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;

(f) the Sub-Divisional Officer or if he is unable to attend, any Gazetted Officer specially authorised by him in that behalf shall preside over, conduct and regulate the proceedings of the meeting;

(g) the voting at all such meetings shall be by secret ballot;

(h) no such meeting shall stand adjourned to a subsequent date and no item of business other than the resolution for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be taken up for consideration at the meeting;

(i) if the number of members present at the meeting is less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, the resolution shall stand annulled;

(j) if the resolution is passed at the meeting supported by the majority as specified in Sub-Section (1) the Presiding Officer shall immediately forward the same in original along with the record of the proceedings to the Collector who shall forthwith publish the resolution in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (1); and

(k) where any Gazetted Officer presides at the meeting he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Clause (j), also send a copy of the resolution to the Sub-Divisional Officer for information and such action as may be necessary.

(3) When a meeting has been held in pursuance of Sub- Section (2) for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, no fresh requisition for a meeting shall be maintainable-

(a) in cases falling under Clauses (i) and (j) of the said Sub-Section or where the resolution is defeated after

being considered at the meeting so held, before the expiry of one year from the date of such meeting; or

(b) where the notification calling for general election to the Grama Panchayat has already been published under or in pursuance of Section 12.

(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) no requisition under Sub-Section (2) shall be maintainable in the case of a Sarpanch or Naib-

Sarpanch, as the case may be, before the expiry of two years and six months from the date on which such Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch enters Office:

Provided that all requisitions received under Sub-Section (2) prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 1993, in which no meeting for recording want of confidence has been held by the said date, shall stand abated."

10. On a meaningful reading of the provisions contained in the above

referred Section, it is manifest therefrom that where a meeting of a

Gram Panchayat is convened by the Sub-Divisional Officer and a

resolution is taken with the majority of two-third of the total members

with regard to the no confidence in the Sarpanch, the resolution shall

forthwith be forwarded to the Collector who shall immediately on

receipt of the resolution publish the same on the notice board and from

the date of such publication, the Sarpanch holding an office shall be

deemed to have been disqualified and vacated the same. Sub-Section

(2) of Section-24 is a self-contained code by itself as we are informed

that there is no prescribed mode of convening a meeting notified by the

Government. The emphasis is put to Clause- (a) and (c) of Sub-Section

(2) of Section-24 of the said Act mandating the meeting to be convened

on the requisition signed by at least one-third members of the Gram

Panchayat along with the copy of the resolution proposed to be moved

in the meeting and on such requisition having received, it is imperative

on the Sub-Divisional Officer to fix the date, hour and place of such

meeting and serve a notice upon all the members holding the office on

the date of such notice together with the copy of the requisition and of

the proposed resolution which should not be short of fifteen days from

the date so fixed.

11. Sub-Section (1) of Section-24 envisages two situations. Firstly,

the resolution must be passed in a meeting of a Gram Panchayat

convened by the Sub-Divisional Officer with the majority of two-third

members and secondly, such resolution must be forwarded to the

Collector who shall thereafter affix the same on the notice-board and

from the date of such publication in the notice-board, the Sarpanch

would be deemed to have vacated the office.

12. As indicated above, Sub-Section (2) of Section-24 prescribes the

procedure of convening the said meeting and the moment the legislation

has incorporated the same in a statutory provision, the same has to be

adhered to as any decision or the action taken by the authorities in

contravention thereto would entail such decision liable to be struck

down. We are not unmindful of somewhat settled proposition that the

moment a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, the same

should be done in such manner. What is contemplated in Sub-Section

(2) of Section-24 that no meeting would be convened unless one-third

of the total members of the Gram Panchayat signed the requisition and

a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting to be

called by the Sub-Divisional Officer must accompany the same. What is

sine qua non in this regard is that the no confidence motion can be

brought by at least one-third members of the Gram Panchayat and the

requisition of convening the meeting with the proposed resolution or in

the event, the meeting is convened, the resolution adopted therein must

be served upon the Sub-Divisional Officer in order to call the meeting

of all the members of the Gram Panchayat. Factually, we do not find

any dispute with regard to the requisition by one-third members of the

Gram Panchayat. The appellant has also not taken such point nor

pleaded and, therefore, we can safely proceed on the basis that the

requisition was made by one-third members of the Gram Panchayat

flagging an issue of no confidence against the Sarapanch.

13. The dispute hinges on the resolution taken in the meeting of the

one-third members who have signed the requisition whether such

resolution was adopted on a date when the meeting was convened or

subsequent thereto. It is evident from the letter issued to the Sub-

District Collector, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi that the same is signed by

all the requisitionists and the proposed resolution is attached on the next

page though it bears a date i.e., 22nd October, 2024, but the said letter

was issued on 20th October, 2024 signed by eleven members of the said

Gram Panchayat with a clear note that the copy of the resolution is

attached in the next page and the same is being forwarded to the District

Collector. It is sought to be contended by the appellant that though it

bears a date i.e., 22nd October, 2024 at the top corner of the page on the

right hand side, but it has no bearing to the date of issuance of the said

notice which would further be corroborated by the fact that the

resolution was signed on 22nd October, 2024.

14. We are unable to accede to such submission for the simple reason

that admittedly the meeting was held on 20th October, 2024 and the

resolution was taken which would be corroborated by a subsequent

letter annexed to the petition as Annexure-3. It is inconceivable that the

resolution would be taken on a posterior date and not on the date of

convening the meeting. Even the appellant has not made out any case

that the meeting was not held on 20th October, 2024, but on a

subsequent date and therefore, it is improbable that the meeting which

was admittedly held on 20th October, 2024 ended without taking any

resolution. There is no fetter in signing the resolution on a posterior

date as it simply ratifies and signifies the decision taken on the date of

the meeting and, therefore, it does not invalidate the notice or the

resolution under Section-24 of the said Act. The notice is accompanied

by a resolution which fulfills the conditions enshrined in the statutory

provision and such compliance has to be interpreted in a pragmatic

manner.

15. We are unable to comprehend the contention of the appellant that

the expression 'copy of the resolution' appearing in the aforementioned

statutory provision is to be interpreted in a sense that it should be a part

of annexure to the notice/requisition; in other words, such resolution

must be recorded in a separate piece of paper and to accompany along

with the notice. The purpose of the resolution having taken in the

meeting to be accompanied with the copy of the notice is to be made

known to all the members that the meeting would be held and the

discussion shall be made on the agenda or the decision taken by the

requisitionist in an earlier meeting pertaining to a no confidence against

the Sarpanch. Such procedure is to ensure the fairness, transparency and

the meaningful discussions to be made on the proposed agenda of the

resolution and none of the members should be put on surprise on the

date of such meeting. The purpose is laudable as the authority

convening the meeting has to ensure not only the strict compliance

thereof but also to secure equal participation of the members for the

meaningful discussion in the proposed meeting. There is no prescribed

mode as of now that such resolution must be transcribed in the separate

sheet as the interpretation sought to be made by the appellant if

accepted would frustrate the legislative intent and would be opposed to

the provisions relating thereto. The Court must adopt such

interpretation which would further the workability of the provisions

than to render such provision otiose or redundant. The Court must

harmonize the different provisions of the statute to make it workable

unless the Court finds such provision irreconcilable.

16. We do not find any discord between the steps taken by the

authorities in the spirit of the statutory provisions appearing under

Section-24 of the said Act. We have been taken to the requisitions and

the copy of the resolutions annexed to the writ petition as well as in an

application for stay filed before us. We find that the copy of the

resolution was attached on the next page and, therefore, satisfies the

conditions enshrined in Section-24(2)(a) of the said Act. We, thus, do

not find any justification in the stand of the appellant in this regard.

17. So far as the second point urged before us that such requisition

was signed singularly by the President and not by all the members, we

do not find any substance or the same to be factually correct. Annexure-

3 to the writ petition would reveal that the meeting was held on 20th

October, 2024 and a resolution was taken and such communication was

made by the President in presence of the members who held such

meeting and duly signed therein. Such document on the face of it

cannot be construed to have been signed only by the President, but by

all the members who were present and convened the meeting on the

said date as they put their signatures across their respective names

appearing before the proposed resolution taken in the said meeting. The

procedure is handmade of justice and to be considered in such

perspective. In absence of any prescribed forms, the Court must look

into the document as a whole and if it appears that all the members

present have put their signatures on the said document, merely the

President having signed at the bottom does not render such document to

have been issued unilaterally by the said President, but must be

construed to have been signed by all who requisitioned the meeting and

fulfilled the criteria of the statutory provisions. On both the counts, we

do not find that the decision of the single Bench warrants interference.

18. The appeal and also the applications connected thereto are thus

dismissed.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

S.K. Guin/PA

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 12:09:04