[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nirupama Malik vs State Of Odisha & Others ....Opposite ... on 29 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.21068 of 2025
Nirupama Malik .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rath, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ....Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash. ASC
Mr. A. Behera, Advocate for O.P. No.5
AND
W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2025
Nirupama Malik .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rath, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ....Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash. ASC
Mr. A. Behera, Advocate for O.P. No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:26.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:29.11.2025
1.
Both the writ petitioners are disposed of by a common
judgment since, the cause of action to file the same is
consequent upon issuance of a notice for vote of no
confidence against the petitioner.
2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging
the impugned notice dated 21st January, 2025 issued by
opposite party No.3 with respect to the no confidence motion
initiated against her alleging the action to be in violation of
the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules framed
thereunder, hence, to be declared as void ab initio, inasmuch
as, when the members of the GP, who initiated such motion
have incurred disqualification under Section 25(2) of the Act.
3. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was
duly elected as the Sarpanch of the concerned GP in the year,
2022 and has been serving in such capacity but has assailed
the action of opposite party No.3 since the no confidence
motion has been initiated against her. Briefly stated, the Naib
Sarpanch and other Ward Members of the GP held a meeting
on 8th December, 2024 to propose a no confidence motion
against the petitioner, who allegedly failed to discharge her
duty as the Sarpanch by claiming that she is not holding the
meetings regularly and also misutilizing the funds of the GP.
Such other allegations having been made against the
petitioner including the involvement of her husband in
running the Panchayat, a resolution as per Annexure-1 was
passed in the said meeting and it was followed by a
requisition to opposite party No.3 dated 12th December, 2024.
Upon receiving the requisition, opposite party No.3 issued
notice vide Annexure-3 for a meeting to be held for the
motion. Such action vis-à-vis vote of no confidence is
challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is
politically motivated and has nothing to do with the
governance of the GP. According to the petitioner, the
allegations against her particularly for not holding the
meetings are false and exaggerated for the fact that she
conducted Gram Sabha and Palli Sabha even after deliberate
disruptions caused by some of the members of the GP having
vested interest. In support of meeting held at the Gram
Panchayat level, the petitioner refers to Annexure-4 series. It
is also been denied by the petitioner that her husband is
influencing the decision of the GP and causing disturbances
in its administration claiming it to be a baseless allegation
lacking material evidence with no official complaint or any
formal proceeding ever initiated against her to substantiate
the same. It is alleged by the petitioner that opposite party
No.3 arbitrarily issued the impugned notice for the no
confidence motion without conducting an impartial inquiry to
verify the authenticity of the allegation and as such, the
action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is
claimed by the petitioner that an independent investigation
was necessary to establish the allegations against her as the
same are driven by personal grievances rather than genuine
concern for the proper administration of the GP and also on
account of political vendetta. The plea of the petitioner is
that any member even a Sarpanch incurs disqualification
under Section 25(3) of the Act in case, he fails to attend three
consecutive ordinary meetings and if the petitioner is guilty
of such default, it could have been brought to the notice of
the authority concerned, namely, opposite party No.2 for an
inquiry but instead, the motion is proposed with allegations
against her, which are false, completely baseless and actuated
by political consideration, hence, therefore, the very issuance
of notice by opposite party No.3 is unjustified and thus, liable
to be interfered with and quashed.
4. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 filed counter and denied the
claim of the petitioner and it is pleaded therein that there is
no scope for opposite party No.3 to conduct any such inquiry
or examine or verify the correctness of the allegations but
simply to follow the mandate of law as specified in Section
24 of the Act and as soon as requisition along with proposed
resolution is received, he has to proceed to convene a
meeting to record the vote of no confidence and in the case at
hand, the same has been complied with, hence, followed by
the notice dated 21st January, 2025. It is also pleaded therein
that invoking power under Section 26 of the Act for
disqualification of any member of the G.P. is an independent
proceeding distinct from action under Section 24 thereof and
therefore, to the claim that the allegations should have been
enquired into instead of a motion is totally misconceived,
hence, the contention is liable to be rejected. Lastly, it is
pleaded that the decision of the Ward Members of the GP is
their own and opposite party No.3, for that matter, has no
occasion or scope to examine the motive or the reason behind
the resolution proposing the motion, hence, upon receiving
the requisition, the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of
the Act has been sincerely and strictly adhered to followed
by the notice and therefore, the plea of the petitioner is totally
untenable and devoid of merit.
5. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Behera, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 besides Ms.
Dash, learned ASC for the State.
6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague,
unsubstantiated, politically motivated and primarily directed
against her husband and since are extraneous and irrelevant
cannot form the basis of a no confidence motion against an
elected representative. It is further submitted that the
impugned notice dated 21st January, 2025 suffers from gross
violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity
was afforded to the petitioner to refute or explain the
allegations before opposite party No.3 acted upon the
requisition dated 12th December, 2024. The contention of Mr.
Rath, learned counsel is that the petitioner having been duly
elected as a Sarpanch through an adult suffrage carries a
democratic mandate, which cannot be interfered with lightly,
as permitting removal on vague and not so relevant grounds
would undermine the sanctity of the electoral process and
erode public confidence in democratic institutions. That
apart, it is contended that opposite party No.3, upon receiving
the requisition, ought to have conducted a preliminary
inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made
therein and the resolution and mere mechanical acceptance of
the same without scrutiny amounts to abdication of statutory
responsibility. It is also contended by Mr. Rath, learned
counsel that allowing removal of a woman Sarpanch on the
basis of alleged conduct of her spouse would frustrate the
very object of reserving seats for women in Panchayati Raj
Institutions under the Constitution of India and as any such
exercise, if resorted to, would certainly to discourage their
participation at the grassroot level of governance and
embolden extraneous interference. It is alleged that all the
allegations are vague and false and aimed at the petitioner's
husband and for that, the petitioner cannot be held liable and
that apart, the Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO) being a
Government servant entrusted with the day-to-day
functioning of the GP could have been approached with a
complaint or any such report should have been lodged before
the competent authority for inquiry if indeed any such
nuisance was taking place inside the premises of the GP but
significantly, no such instances ever reported by him thereby
rendering the allegations to be doubtful and unsubstantiated.
7. On the contrary, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for opposite
party No.5 justified the action with the issuance of notice by
opposite party No.3 after receiving the requisition and the
proposed resolution as he has a limited role to play in an
exercise for vote of no confidence and the same cannot be
faulted with. The Ward Members, who proposed the motion,
according to Mr. Behera, learned counsel, who lost their
confidence in the petitioner and being dissatisfied with her
performance and in running the GP passed the resolution and
submitted the requisition finally leading to the issuance of
notice dated 21st January, 2025 and opposite party No.3
having the responsibility to ensure that a meeting to be held,
fixed up a date and mentioned the other details therein in
order to enable all the members of the GP to participate and
debate on the motion, hence, the entire exercise is in
accordance with law.
8. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State would submit that
the allegations against the petitioner are the basis for the vote
of no confidence motion and hence, the resolution followed
by the requisition received by opposite party No.3 and it has
resulted in issuance of the notice dated 21st January, 2025 and
as there is a limited scope to intervene and to find out and
ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations, it
was for him to convene a meeting for a debate and
deliberation among the members of the GP and therefore, the
exercise adopted is according to the procedure prescribed
under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act.
9. The allegations are against the petitioner for failing to
perform to the satisfaction of the requisitionists of the
motion, hence, the resolution. The involvement of the
petitioner's husband in the day-to-day governance is also
alleged. The misconduct is directed against the petitioner and
also her husband, who is alleged of having a dominant role in
the running of the GP. Since, the Ward Members, who are
the proponent of the resolution, have become dissatisfied on
the performance of the petitioner, submitted the requisition to
opposite party No.3 and it was followed by the notice dated
21st January, 2025 with intimation to all the members about a
special meeting to be held on 11th February, 2025 presided
over by the Tahasildar, Bari.
10. In course of hearing, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that an inquiry was necessary to the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and that apart, some
of the Ward Members incurred disqualification and action
against them is sub-judice before the Collector, Jajpur,
namely, opposite party No.2, hence, the motion proposed
should not be allowed to take place until an inquiry in terms
of Section 25(2) of the Act is concluded. Furthermore, Mr.
Rath, learned counsel cited a decision in Shivangiben
Chetankumar Patel Vrs. State of Gujarat
MANU/GJ/0609/2018 with the submission that the Court
should protect a Sarpanch from removal by a no confidence
motion under the circumstances leading to the proposed
motion, as in the case (supra), it has been observed that the
statute, when silent on any such aspects in prescribing a
minimum time frame, to be purposively interpreted to
prevent misuse of the provisions therein and to allow the
elected representative, a fair opportunity to perform duties
and responsibility assigned.
11. On the contrary, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for opposite
party No.5 would submit that the Naib Sarpanch or Ward
Members, whosoever alleged of having invited
disqualification are to participate in the motion as they are
the requisitionists and still not disqualified under Section 25
of the Act and any such disqualification in case directed
would be prospective in nature and placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in Kanti Kumbhar Vrs. State of
Orissa and another 2001 II OLR 44 to contend that a
resolution need not prescribe any reasons for the motion of
no confidence, hence, review of such reasons either by an
inquiry or judicial proceeding is not permissible.
12. On the allegations against the petitioner revealed from the
resolution, the question is, whether, any such inquiry was
necessarily to follow by opposite party No.3 before issuance
of notice for the vote of no confidence against her. Such an
authority has the power to cause an inquiry into the
allegations against a Sarpanch but only in the context of
official proceedings, not as a part of a no confidence motion,
an exercise, which according to the Court, is separate and
independent entirely related to the governance of the GP.
Whether a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch lost confidence in the
members of the GP and a decision for a no confidence
motion via a resolution and requisition is a process initiated
without any indulgence of the Subdivisional Officer, who is
empowered and having the limited role to ensure that a
meeting is convened for the vote on such motion. In other
words, the authority receiving the requisition is only to
facilitate a special meeting to be held for a debate on the
motion. The Sub-divisional Officer is having a role primarily
administrative as he does not involve himself investigating
into the allegations behind the motion. The function of such
an authority is to facilitate the vote of no confidence to take
place with a debate and not to investigate the truth of the
allegations contained in the requisition for the motion, which
in itself is a political expression of lost confidence, not a
judicial or administrative finding of guilt. According to the
Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer is having no investigatorial
powers upon receiving a requisition except to convene a
meeting for the motion for the members of the GP, who are
to vote for or against the proposed resolution. While, the
concerned authority does not investigate into the allegations
of a no confidence motion but necessarily possessed of power
to initiate an inquiry for disciplinary action under the Act,
which is a separate exercise altogether. In other words, upon
receiving a report of willful violation of the act or abuse of
power or any such action of a Sarpanch detrimental to the
GP, it may be investigated upon and inquired into by the
Sub-Divisional Officer and can report with findings to the
Collector, who is having the power to suspend him and may
even refer the matter to the Government for his removal. But,
such an inquiry is separate, an administrative-cum-quasi
judicial process and is not linked to the no confidence
procedure as a motion proceeds with a vote regardless of any
such disciplinary inquiry contemplated or ongoing. Having
said that, the Court is in respectful disagreement with the
contention of Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that
opposite party No.3 should have inquired into the allegations
against the petitioner in the first place before issuing the
notice for the motion. That apart, the act does not prescribe
any such mechanism with powers conferred on the Sub-
Divisional Officer to hold a preliminary inquiry into the
allegations, hence, therefore, the Court's view is as above. If
there is no such procedure provided for an inquiry related to
the allegations followed by a motion for the vote of no
confidence, there is no question of any violation of principles
of natural justice. It was never a statutory obligation for
opposite party No.3 to hold any such inquiry and provide the
petitioner an opportunity to explain or refute the allegation
contained in the requisition except to direct the members to
debate on the motion with a special meeting convened for the
said purpose. It is not the duty and the responsibility of a
Sub-Divisional Officer to examine whether the allegations
levelled against a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch as the case may
be, who is sought to be impeached are substantiated or
whether it is politically motivated after receiving a
requisition. An institution, which is run and governed by the
Sarpanch and other Ward Members do have the rights and
privileges independently and it includes, any such vote of no
confidence, which may be initiated in terms of Section 24 of
the Act.
13. No doubt, there is a democratic mandate after an election
and the same is to be respected. A panchayat as an institution
is self-governed without the direct influence of the
Government. When a question of lost confidence in a
Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch arises, apart from any such
action, which may be initiated at the administrative level,
each and every member of the GP is having the rights to
propose a no confidence motion and in case, a resolution is
drawn, it has to reach to a logical end. In absence of any such
powers conferred on a Sub-Divisional Officer for inquiry into
the allegations, on which, a motion is based, it cannot be said
that the exercise towards removal of a Sarpanch and Naib
Sarpanch is to undermine the democratic mandate. The
malperformance of any such office bearer of the GP would
rather erode the public confidence in the institution and
therefore, such a mechanism is in place with a motion
proposed. Whether, the allegations are vague, irrelevant or
unsubstantiated are to be discussed and debated upon in the
special meeting to be held for the motion and in that regard,
the Sub-Divisional Officer, who received the requisition does
not have any investigatorial role. So, the contention of Mr.
Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party
No.3 failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry to examine the
veracity of the allegations instead mechanically accepted the
requisition without due scrutiny, hence, it amounts to
abdication of responsibility cannot be accepted for the reason
that no statutory power has been conferred on him when a
proposed resolution and requisition are received except to fix
up a date and venue to facilitate a special meeting convened
for the members of the GP to debate thereon.
14. The further contention of Mr. Rath, learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner is a woman and the very
object of reserving seats for women in Panchayat institutions
would be frustrated in case of her removal is also
unacceptable for the reason that there is no material on record
to suggest that on account of any such bias on gender basis
that the proposed motion has been initiated. It is not that the
petitioner's performance is questioned on account of her
gender but based on competence in running the institution. If
there is any misconduct alleged against the petitioner's
husband, it is a matter of concern because the GP is to be
managed entirely by her. In any case, the said allegation
against the petitioner for the undue involvement of her
husband in running the institution is nothing personal, rather,
relates to the functioning of the GP. The entire allegation is
against the petitioner and related to her duty and functions as
a Sarpanch, even though, her husband's involvement is
alleged and therefore, the Ward Members passed the
resolution for lost confidence followed by the requisition
submitted to opposite party No.3, hence, to claim that any
such removal of a woman Sarpanch is against the interest of
the Panchayati Raj Institutions is totally misplaced. Rather, it
should not be given a colour of any such gender related bias
especially when the petitioner's performance as a Sarpanch is
under scrutiny followed by the resolution, which is an
exercise entirely in accordance with the scheme of the Act.
15. It is to reiterate that any such proceedings under Section
26 of the Act against the Ward Members, who are the
signatories to the resolution are independent actions and
therefore, unless and until, any or all of them is/are
disqualified, each and every one of them is a valid member of
the GP not only to pass the resolution and submit a
requisition but also to participate in the motion. Only if a
member is declared disqualified on any of the grounds
proved and established with the culmination of a proceeding
under Section 26 of the Act, he or she is disqualified to hold
the office and not otherwise and to participate in the motion
until such declaration, which is again having a prospective
effect. In so far as a motion is concerned, once it is proposed
and cleared, a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, as against whom,
it was initiated is deemed to have vacated the office in view
of Section 24(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Court reaches at a
conclusion that in absence of any such disqualification
against any Ward Members, who are the requisitionists to the
resolution and requisition are to be held as valid members till
declared disqualified and therefore, any such exercise
initiated by opposite party No.3 upon receiving the
requisition cannot be the basis to oppose the motion by the
petitioner, who instead is to independently pursue the
proceedings under Section 26 of the Act against them.
16. The decision in Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel (supra)
is based on the premise that the no confidence motion was
initiated within a year from the date of first meeting of the
GP and hence, issuance of notice for any such motion was
declared unconstitutional. The above case law is inapplicable
to the case of the petitioner as herein the motion has been
proposed long after the period stipulated had expired and it
has been in terms of Section 24 of the Act. According to the
Court, the above decision does not render any assistance to
the plea advanced by the petitioner. The decision in Kanti
Kumar (supra) relied upon by Mr. Behera, learned counsel
for opposite party No.5 is a case concerning an action under
Section 46-B of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959,
wherein, it has been observed that no particular reason is to
be mentioned in the requisition for a no confidence motion.
Such is not the ground advanced by the petitioner alleging
that the resolution is without reasons. Anyways, the Court is
inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Behera, learned
counsel for opposite party No.5 and Ms. Dash, learned ASC
for the State that opposite party No.3 is having no power to
examine the truthfulness of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner with any such inquiry, while dealing with a
requisition for vote of no confidence, as it is not envisaged in
the Act with any such procedure prescribed for the said
purpose except the duty assigned to ensure and facilitate a
special meeting convened for the motion to be debated.
17. Accordingly, it is ordered.
18. In the result the writ petitions stand dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
