Orissa High Court
Narendra Majhi vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27500 of 2024
Narendra Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dash, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC
Mr. Satya Ranjan Pati, Advocate for O.P. No.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:21.04.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the notice dated 25th October, 2024 as at Annexure-1 issued
in connection with no confidence motion initiated against
him with a date for the special meeting scheduled to be held
on 11th November, 2024 on the grounds inter alia that the
impugned exercise is not in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the GP in
question situate under Kesinga Block in the district of
Kalahandi. As per the pleading on record, the petitioner is
also a Member of the Panchayat Samiti in terms of Section
16 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (in short 'the
Act'). As per the Act, Kesinga Panchayat Samiti consists of
26 elected Samiti Members, 26 Sarpanch, a Member of
Parliament and two members of the Legislative Assembly
with a total membership of 55 and the petitioner, while
continuing as Sarpanch of Utkela G.P learnt about the elected
Ward Members to have initiated a vote of no confidence
motion against him on 9th October, 2024 and hence, have
approached opposite party No.3 with the request to the latter
to call for a special meeting as per Section 24 of the Orissa
Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
OGP Act') and in that connection, impugned notice was
issued and duly served but the motion was not held. A copy
of the said notice dated 25th October, 2024 is at Annexure-1
and it was accompanied with the resolution and requisition of
the Ward Members. The resolution is dated 9th October, 2024
and as further pleaded, it was passed in a meeting presided
over by the Naib Sarpanch of the GP. As per the resolution,
the Sarpanch of the GP, namely, the petitioner alleged to
have been involved in corruption and for having failed to
undertake a single development work during his tenure, so
far. Such other allegations have been made by the Ward
Members against the petitioner with the resolution passed
followed by the requisition. It is alleged that the petitioner as
the Sarpanch used to attend the office under the influence of
alcohol but the same has been denied with the claim that
there is no iota of truthfulness in the same. With regard to the
allegation of financial irregularities, it is further pleaded that
a Sarpanch is in no way involved in so far monetary
transactions are concerned vis-a-vis Public Distribution
System (PDS) and as a matter of fact, the PEO and others are
in-charge of such affairs, hence, there was no any occasion
for siphoning of fund by him. The petitioner submits that he
is one of the Members of the Panchayat Samiti and he is also
a signatory to the resolution and requisition for a no
confidence motion against the Chairman of Kesinga
Panchayat Samiti, hence, he has been made to suffer with the
impugned action in order to dissuade him to cast vote in
support of such motion. With the above pleading on record,
the challenge is to the no confidence motion consequent upon
the issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1.
3. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Pradhan, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Pati, learned
counsel for opposite party No.4.
4. In order to defend himself from the allegation of financial
irregularities, the petitioner has referred to the PDS
guidelines and the manner of payments made to the vendors
under CFC/SFC funds with the list of developmental works
being undertaken within Utkela Gram Panchayat with such
other materials, copies whereof are as at Annexures-2 to 4
and 5 series. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the motion at the instance of the Ward
Members with a requisition and issuance of notice as per
Annexure-1 is an act of vengeance and to coerce the
petitioner not to cast vote in vote of confidence initiated
against the Chairman of Kesinga Panchayat Samiti. The
further submission is that the allegations against the
petitioner are totally false which may be verified with
reference to Annexures-2 to 4 and 5 series. The contention of
Mr. Dash, learned counsel is that in order to protect the
interest of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and to
create an atmosphere of coercion, the no confidence motion
has been commenced against the petitioner alleging
falsehood. Mr. Pati, learned counsel for opposite party No.4,
on the contrary, submits that a resolution has been passed and
it was at the behest of the Ward Members with certain
allegations made with a decision for the motion and
accordingly, having received the requisition in that regard,
opposite party No.3 was statutorily obliged to honour the
same and act upon fixing a date for the special meeting to be
held and attended by all, hence, there is no wrong or illegality
committed by him and therefore, the notice as at Annexure-1
is in accordance with law. Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the
State supports the contention of Mr. Pati, learned counsel for
opposite party No.4 with the submission that the decision for
the motion has no connection with the issuance of notice by
opposite party No.3 and hence, on any such grounds as
advanced from the side of the petitioner, it can be opposed
claiming the action to be without jurisdiction.
5. A copy of the requisition dated 4th October, 2024 is at
Annexure-6. Such requisition reveals the reason behind the
decision and the resolution of the Ward Members for the no
confidence motion. The resolution as per Annexure-6 is dated
3rd October, 2024. The requisition of the Ward Members is
annexed with the resolution indicating therein, the agenda for
discussion and decision for the vote of no confidence against
the petitioner signed by them. In fact, such resolution and
requisition is in respect of the no confidence motion initiated
against the Chairman of Kesinga Panchayat Samiti and it was
responded to by opposite party No.3 with a letter dated 7th
October, 2024 as at Annexure-8 as it was not in compliance
with Section 46-B of the Act. All such consequences and
events followed thereafter are referable to Annexures-8 to 11.
It is revealed from the record that the petitioner and others
filed W.P.(C) No.27113 of 2024 challenging the decision of
opposite party No.3 in the matter of no confidence motion
vis-à-vis the Chairman of Kesinga Panchayat Samiti stated to
be pending disposal. Irrespective of any such vote of no
confidence against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, the
question is, whether, the petitioner can oppose a motion
initiated against him pursuant to the resolution of the Ward
Members of the GP and as per the Act followed by
requisition and issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1?
6. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed the counter affidavit and
pleaded that the requisition is not maintainable either in facts
or law and wholly misconceived and as such, the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief and hence, it shall have to be
dismissed in limine. It is pleaded that the writ petition suffers
from non-joinder of necessary parties as the allegations are
made against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti as well
as other Ward Members of the GP. The reply of opposite
party Nos.2 and 3 is that opposite party No.3 was duty bound
to proceed as per Section 24 of the OGP Act as soon as he
received a requisition of 1/3rd of Members of the GP sent
along with a copy of the resolution for convening a meeting
for the vote of no confidence motion. The further pleading is
that it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of opposite party
No.3 to go into and examine the reason behind such motion
as in a democratic setup, the Ward Members are free to move
the resolution. The pleading is that after receipt of requisition
with the resolution, opposite party No.3 observed all the
formalities, such as, the requisition of signatories of the Ward
Members with their views being taken as per sub-section (2)
of Section 24 of the Act and authorized the Tahasildar,
Kesinga to preside over the meeting to be held on 11th
November, 2024. The reply is that the resolution was
received from opposite party No.4 and ten others by opposite
party No.3 on 4th October, 2024 and as per the powers
conferred, notices to all the Members having right to vote
along with the petitioner were issued which was
acknowledged by the latter with a signature thereon as at
Annexure-A/3. The details of the verification which was
carried out by the orders of opposite party No.3 have also
been pleaded therein. With such pleading on record, opposite
party Nos.2 and 3 claimed for dismissal of the writ petition in
order to facilitate declaration of the result as in the meantime,
the motion was held without publication of its result in view
of the Court's interim order dated 8th November, 2024 in IA
No.14898 of 2024.
7. A copy of the order dated 8th November, 2024 in W.P.(C)
No.27113 of 2024 is produced by Mr. Dash, learned counsel
for the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner and others seek for
a direction for prompt decision against the Chairman of the
Orissa Panchayat Samiti as per the Orissa Panchayat Samiti
Act and Section 46-B thereof vis-à-vis no confidence motion
to be initiated against him. The submission of Mr. Dash,
learned counsel is that one of the allegations against the
petitioner as per the resolution that he attends the office in a
drunken condition is defamatory and therefore, such
resolution dated 9th October, 2024 cannot withstand in view
of Rule 13 of the Rules of Business under the Amended
Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014. Referring to the order dated
8th November, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.27113 of 2024, the
submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel is that this Court
considered the relief sought for by the petitioners therein for
a direction against any such coercive action with respect to
the no confidence motion to be held. In the said writ petition,
as the response of the State is awaited, the no confidence
motion e held on 18th November, 2024 without the result of
the same being published till the next date of hearing,
however, according to the Court, by no stretch of
imagination, any such order in IA No.14688 of 2024 could
stand as a bar to initiate the vote of no confidence against the
petitioner and consequential issuance of notice (Annexure-1).
The further contention of Mr. Dash, learned counsel is that
the resolution dated 9th October, 2024 received with a
requisition does not bear the date and furthermore, the Ward
Members present in the meeting with the resolution passed
and their signatures and the ones so appear on the undated
requisition to be different. Further claim is that though the
notice dated 25th October, 2024 bears a date for the special
meeting to be held on 11th November, 2024 but the same has
neither been served on the petitioner nor any other alternate
process to serve the same was followed. It is reiterated that
no confidence motion of the petitioner is an outcome of his
participation and resolution against the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti for a similar motion in terms of Section 46-
B of the Act. The resolution bears the signatures of the Ward
Members and upon receiving the requisition, opposite party
No.3 as per the counter affidavit held enquiry and such other
verification and thereafter, issued notice as per Annexure-1.
In the considered view of the Court, any such requisition
without a date and difference in signatures of the Ward
Members with respect to the resolution and requisition
cannot be a ground to quash the action of opposite party
No.3, when it was followed by an enquiry and necessary
verification stated to have been made. The Court finds that
such a ground cannot be sustained to oppose the motion. In
fact, the Court does not find any reason or justification to
consider such a ground advanced from the side of the
petitioner sufficient enough to intervene and interfere vis-à-
vis the motion and notice issued by opposite party No.3,
especially when, upon such receipt of requisition, an enquiry
was stated to have been held and carried out.
8. At this juncture, Mr. Pati, learned counsel for opposite
party No.4 cited a decision of this Court in Jagadish
Pradhan and others Vrs. Kapileswar Pradhan and others
(1985) 60 CLT 410 to contend that opposite party No.3
rightly issued the notice i.e. Annexure-2 taking judicial
notice of the real intention behind the resolution. In the
decision (supra), it has been held that in absence of any rules
or forms prescribed for the purpose of a no confidence
motion, the requirement of Section 46-B of the Orissa Gram
Panchayats Act, 1959 shall have to be held as satisfied, if it is
substantially complied with. It has been held therein that the
word 'requisition' has not been defined under the said Act or
in the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 and referring to the
general meaning of it as per the dictionary to be an act
requiring a formal demand and request held and concluded
that there has been compliance of the provisions of Section
46-B of the Act, the authority having well understood the
intention behind the resolution followed by a notice for the
special meeting to be held for the motion. In the case at hand,
there has been a resolution and requisition and it was well
intentioned to initiate an action against the petitioner for
having lost confidence as the Sarpanch of the GP and hence,
upon verification, when a decision was taken with the
issuance of notice as per Annexure-1, in absence of any
material to show such intention to be otherwise or for that
matter, any such mechanism under the Act for an enquiry
with regard to the allegations made pending the motion to
take place, opposite party No.3 was obligated to go for the
exercise complying the provisions of Section 24 of the OGP
Act. Considering the materials on record, whether, the claim
of the Ward Members against the petitioner vis-a-vis the
allegation made to be truthful or otherwise, which would
require a threadbare enquiry but the same being beyond the
scope and jurisdiction of opposite party No.3 under the Act,
while dealing with the request received for and in support of
motion, it has been to be held that upon receiving the
requisition with a copy of the resolution, the inevitable
consequence would be, the issuance of Annexure-1.
9. In Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa and others 1988 (I)
OLR 76, it is held and observed that issuance of notice for
the motion is mandatory but the manner for service of such
notice is directory. As further held therein, the notice
demands at least fifteen clear days fixed for the special
meeting to be held and such provision, as per Section
24(2)(c) of the Act, to be compulsory and hence, has to be
complied with. In the case of the petitioner, notice was issued
and claimed to have been duly served and it cannot be said
that the petitioner was in any manner stood prejudiced, all the
more when, notice for the no confidence motion allowed a
clear fifteen days before the meeting was to be convened and
therefore, it can be said that opposite party No.3 ensured
mandatory compliance of Section 24 of the Act in terms of
the decision in Sarat Padhi (supra). The aforesaid view was
reiterated by this Court in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of
Odisha and others 2022(I) OLR-377.
10. As regards the contention of Mr. Dash, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner in
attending the office being drunk to be defamatory and hence,
not in terms with the language of resolution outlined in Rule
13 of the Rules of Business is concerned, the Court is of the
humble view that it is not a defamation in one's personal
capacity. In fact, Rule 13 stipulates that no such resolution or
question shall be admissible which does not comply with the
conditions, such as, it shall be clear and precisely expressed
with a definite issue involved; shall not contain arguments,
ironical expressions or defamatory statements nor shall it
refer to the conduct or character of the persons except in their
official or public capacity; shall refer and have direct bearing
to the discretionary and obligatory functions of the Gram
Panchayats under the Act; and shall not contain any adverse
view or objection to the decision of the Grama Sabha. It is
contended by Mr. Dash, learned counsel that the very
allegation of arriving at GP office in an inebriated condition
is defamatory, hence, therefore, the resolution is no in
accordance with Rule 13 (supra). It is to reiterate that the
petitioner is a Sarpanch and he has not been alleged so in his
personal capacity but at the time, while attending the office,
normally unbecoming on the part of anyone holding a public
office. Any such conduct may amount to defamation, if it is
not connected to the official functions. If someone is in habit
of taking alcohol but not in office or while discharging public
functions, any such allegation may be held as defamatory but
if the conduct is such and one reaches the office being drunk,
the Court is in doubt, whether, it would still be a defamation.
Nonetheless, upon a reading of the resolution, the Court finds
that other allegations have also been made against the
petitioner regarding corruption, misappropriation besides him
having not undertaken any such developmental work during
last two and half years from then. As earlier said,
independent enquiry is necessary to consider the allegations,
whether to be true or false but in the scheme of the Act, in
absence of any such mechanism for an enquiry except to the
extent like verification with regard to the resolution and
requisition received, while dealing with a motion initiated,
the Authority concerned is statutorily required to respond and
thereafter, to issue a notice for the special meeting to be held.
So, it has to be held that any such ground, as has been
advanced by Mr. Dash, learned counsel, with a reference to
Rule 13 of the Rules of Business cannot be a ground to defeat
the motion or at least, for opposite party No.3 to decline
issuance of notice for such motion. The law is well settled
that a motion, if sought for as per the Act with a resolution
and requisition, subject to compliance of Section 24 of the
Act, the natural consequence would have to fix up a date for
a special meeting for the no confidence motion after carrying
out the necessary verification and in the case at hand, such an
exercise was claimed to have been accomplished by opposite
party No.3 and therefore, the inescapable conclusion would
be that the decision with a notice as per Annexure-1 in
connection with the vote of no confidence against the
petitioner does not really suffer from any legal infirmity.
11.Hence, it is ordered.
12.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a
necessary consequence, the interim order dated 8th
November, 2024 of this Court in I.A.No.14898 of 2024 is
hereby vacated thereby paving the way for declaration of
result of the motion already held in the meantime.
13.In the circumstances, however, no order as to the cots.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
