Orissa High Court
Ramalata Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.741 of 2025
Ramalata Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Swain, AGA
Mr. S. Palit, Advocate
(for Opposite Party Nos.5 to 13
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 25.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.10.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the impugned notice as at Annexure-1 issued by opposite
party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion
initiated against him on the grounds inter alia that the same is
in contravention of the provisions of the Odisha Grama
Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'),
hence, liable to be interferred with in the interest of justice.
2. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner received a notice
from opposite party No.3 indicating therein about the Ward
Members of the concerned GP including the Naib Sarpanch
to have proposed a vote of no confidence against him with a
resolution and the requisition with the date of special meeting
fixed to 15th January, 2025. The contention of the petitioner
is that the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was not
accompanied with the enclosures, such as, the copies of the
resolution and requisition dated 30th November, 2024. It is
claimed that upon receiving Annexure-1, the petitioner
approached opposite party No.3 on 3rd January, 2025 and
submitted a letter stating therein that the enclosures not to
have been sent along with it and since the same was received
but without any receipt, it was sent by Registered Post on 4th
January, 2025. The further claim is that opposite party No.3
neither intimated the petitioner in response to the letter sent
by Post nor supplied the copies of the proposed resolution
dated 5th December, 2024 and the requisition. The contention
is that the no confidence motion against the petitioner
without the enclosures to the notice as per Annexure-1 is in
gross violation of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, hence, the
entire exercise at the instance of the Ward Members and Naib
Sarpanch with the decision of opposite party No.3 convening
a Special Meeting for the said purpose stands vitiated.
3. On the contrary, State refuted the claim of the petitioner
and by filling the counter affidavit, it is pleaded that the
notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued by opposite party No.3 in
accordance with Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. It is further
pleaded that the copies of the proposed resolution and
requisition were sent allowing with the notice to the
petitioner and all concerned indicating therein the date fixed
for the special meeting and therefore, the plea advanced by
him is out rightly a falsehood.
4. Heard, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Palit, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.5 to 13.
5. Perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder of the
petitioner. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 20 th February,
2025, the file maintained in the establishment of opposite
part No.3 dealing with the no confidence motion was
produced by Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State in course
of hearing and the same is gone through to verify the claim of
the petitioner.
6. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 since was not
accompanied with the proposed resolution and requisition,
the petitioner approached opposite party No.3 and even
demanded supply of the same, but it was of no avail. The
submission of Mr. Pujari, learned counsel is that if the notice
for no confidence motion was issued without the proposed
resolution and requisition, as it is statutorily mandated, there
is no compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. For such
non-compliance, the petitioner on 3rd January, 2025
approached opposite party No.3 and submitted a letter
claiming that the notice was not having the enclosure
mentioned therein and it was followed by sending a letter
dated 3rd January, 2025 by Post but it is claimed to have
yielded no result and according to Mr. Pujari, learned
counsel, the exercise for the vote of no confidence against the
petitioner is, hence, invalid having no sanction of law.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State
referring to the counter affidavit would submit that due
procedure has been followed with initiation of the vote of no
confidence to the petitioner and others by a notice i.e.
Annexure-1 and the same was sent along with enclosure and
hence, it is incorrect to allege that the copies of the proposed
resolution and requisition had not been dispatched. By
verifying the concerned file directed to be produced before
the Court, Mr. Swain, learned AGA submits that no any
illegality has been committed by opposite party No.3 in
issuing the notice as per Annexure-1 after having received
the requisition from opposite party Nos.5 to 13. Referring to
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, it is contended by Mr. Swain,
learned AGA that the notice under challenge was issued by
opposite party No.3 complying the procedure, hence, it
cannot be questioned by the petitioner on any such ground.
8. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party
Nos.5 to 13 submits that the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1
was issued on the strength of proposed resolution moved by
eight of the Ward Members and in so far as the petitioner is
concerned, he is the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
The further submission is that out of ten Ward Members,
eight of them moved the requisition, consequent upon the
resolution passed, with a request to opposite party No.3 to
convene a special meeting for the no confidence motion and
hence, it is as per the quorum statutorily necessary. It is
submitted that the Ward Members had approached this Court
in W.P.(C) No.31522 of 2024 seeking a direction to opposite
party No.3 to call for a meeting vis-à-vis the motion and by
order dated 13th December, 2024, it was disposed of with
such a direction and in compliance thereof and upon due
scrutiny and verification, the date for such meeting was fixed
to 15th January, 2025 and was intimated and circulated to all
concerned with a notice received by the petitioner as well,
annexing thereto, the copies of the resolution and requisition,
hence, the plea for non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the
Act is not correct. Referring to the counter affidavit of the
State filed through opposite party No.3, Mr. Palit, learned
Senior Advocate would further submit that the notice i.e.
Annexure-1 was issued along with the enclosure and served
on all the Ward Members including the petitioner, hence, the
foundational plea has collapsed with the requirement of law
as per Section 24(2)(c) of the Act having been satisfied and
therefore, the interim protection allowed by the Court's order
dated 13th January, 2025 on any such premise warrants
vacatur. Furthermore, a decision of Division Bench of this
Court in Pramod Kumar Sahu Vrs. State of Odisha and
others in W.A. No.3473 of 2024 is referred to by Mr. Palit,
learned Senior Advocate to contend that the plea of the
petitioner is unacceptable and hence, it is to be out rightly
rejected. A reference has been made to the decision of this
Court in Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Orissa & others AIR
1988 (Orissa) 116 with the submission that modes of service
or failure by any member to receive the notice is not to
render the meeting invalid. With the above submission and
case laws cited, Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate finally
submits that the issuance of impugned notice as per
Annexure-1 is in accordance with law, hence, the exercise for
the motion and therefore, the special meeting having been
held on the date fixed, the order in I.A. No.461 of 2025 is
required to be vacated in order to facilitate the result of the
motion to be published immediately.
9. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit, Mr. Pujari, learned
counsel for the petitioner finally submits that there is error
apparent on the face of the record and hence, no proper
compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, consequent upon
the Court's order dated 7th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) No.3873
of 2025, the action for the motion by opposite party No.3 is
to fail and that apart, the decision in Pramod Kumar Sahu
(supra) is inapplicable and distinguishable on facts. It is also
contended that the judgment in Sarat Padhi (supra) is
equally not applicable, which has laid down the law
regarding the mandatory compliance of clear fifteen days
notice as necessary in view of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act.
10. Admittedly, a resolution was passed by opposite party
Nos.5 to 13 and it was followed by the requisition. Upon
receiving the requisition, opposite party No.3 said to have
issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1. The claim of the
petitioner is that the notice was not received along with the
enclosure. As earlier stated, the petitioner claimed supply of
the copies of the proposed resolution and requisition
approaching opposite party No.3 but the same proved futile.
The question is, whether, for any such plea of the petitioner,
the vote of no confidence stands invalidated for being not in
compliance with Section 24(2)(c) of the Act? It is stated
earlier that opposite party Nos.5 to 13 had approached this
Court in W.P.(C) No.31522 of 2024 and by order dated 13th
December, 2024, opposite party No.3 was directed to
consider convening a special meeting for the motion and as it
is made to understand, opposite party No.3, thereafter,
proceeded and ultimately, issued the impugned notice i.e.
Annexure-1. The only claim of the petitioner is that such
notice was received by him without the proposed resolution
and requisition. In the counter affidavit, opposite party No.3
pleaded to have followed the procedure as per Section
24(2)(c) of the Act and fixed the date of special meeting after
receiving the requisition. It is categorically pleaded therein
that the notice was sent with the resolution and requisition to
all the Ward Members including the petitioner, who happens
to be the Sarpanch. Upon perusal of the record, it is made to
understand that there has been an exercise in the manner
contemplated under the Act for the special meeting to be held
for the motion. Nothing is on record to suggest that the
copies of the resolution and requisition were not along with
the notice i.e. Annexure-1. Normally, a notice is issued to all
concerned with the intimation about the meeting called for
upon receiving a requisition towards the no confidence
motion. By claiming that the resolution and requisition had
not been sent with the notice i.e. Annexure-1, the Court is of
the considered view that such a plea should not be
entertained to invalidate the motion. Of course, the
compliance is necessary since a notice has to accompany the
resolution and requisition in terms of Section 24(2)(c) of the
Act but considering the counter affidavit, the Court is to hold
that due procedure was followed. The manner of service of
notice whether to have been received or otherwise in the
interval period even with less than fifteen days time cannot
be the a ground to challenge the no confidence motion unless
any prejudice is shown but any such notice issued for the
motion shall have to be accompanied with the proposed
resolution and requisition but the claim of opposite party
No.3 regarding compliance as per Section 24(2)(c) of the Act
shall have to be accepted as it is hard to believe about the
notice being sent to all and received by the petitioner without
the enclosure containing the resolution and requisition.
11. In Pramod Kumar Sahu (supra), it has been held and
observed that the expression 'copy of the resolution'
occurring in Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is to be interpreted in
a sense that it should be a part of the annexure to the notice;
in other words, such resolution must be recorded separately
and to accompany along with the notice and the purpose of
the resolution and a copy thereof to be sent along with the
notice is to intimate all the members about the meeting to be
held and such procedure is to ensure fairness, transparency
and meaningful discussions on the proposed agenda for the
resolution in order to prevent anyone taken by surprise. It is
further held therein that the Authority convening the meeting
is to ensure strict compliance of the provisions of law and to
secure participation of all the members for a meaningful
discussion and for the purpose, it is fixed. When there is no
prescribed mode as of now that such resolution must be
transcribed in a separate sheet, as further held therein, any
such interpretation sought to be made, if accepted, would
frustrate the legislative intent, hence, the Court must adopt
such interpretation which ensures workability of the same
and not to render it otiose or redundant with the concluding
remark that all such provisions of the Act must have to be
harmonized unless found to be irreconcilable. Keeping in
view the above case laws and for the fact that opposite party
No.3 failed in his duty in any manner in not dispatching the
resolution and requisition along with the notice as required
under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, which in normal course
adopted, it has to be held that such notice has been issued to
all concerned according to law.
12. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the
following decisions in Arati Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha
and others dated 10th March, 2025 in W.A. No.328 of 2025,
Prahallad Dalei Vrs. State of Odisha and others AIR 2014
Orissa 179 and Mamata Behera Vrs. State of Odisha &
others 2020 (II) ILR-CUT-98. But, with due respect, the
Court is inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Swain,
learned AGA for the State for the reason that sending of
notice with the enclosure carrying the proposed resolution
and requisition mentioned therein is not ordinarily to be
disbelieved unless any such material is placed on record to
show otherwise. From the counter affidavit, it is made to
understand that in response to Annnexure-2, a copy of the
resolution was sent by post to the petitioner so revealed from
Annexure-E/3. Furthermore, in addition to the above
exercise, a copy of the resolution was sent to the petitioner
through a letter dated 7th January, 2025, which is about seven
days before the date fixed for the motion. It is, however,
made to suggest that the notice was issued to each and every
member of the GP initially and that supposes notice to the
petitioner with the enclosure mentioned therein. The Court is
not inclined to suspect opposite party No.3 in the matter of
performing the official duty. As it further appears, even after
intimation as per Annexure-2, it was responded vide
Annexure-E/3 and that apart, notice was affixed in the notice
board for the public, as revealed from the counter of opposite
party No.3. Under such circumstances, having regard to the
fact that the date for the motion was fixed by opposite party
No.3 and it was consequent upon an order dated 13 th
December, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.31522 of 2024, with the
necessary paraphernalia being observed, the plea of the
petitioner against the vote of no confidence on such ground is
liable to be rejected. In view of the above discussions, the
Court reaches at a final conclusion that there has been proper
compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act and hence, the
motion held on the date fixed cannot be opposed on any such
ground pleaded by the petitioner.
13. Hence, it is ordered.
14. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
15. As a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 13th
January, 2025 in I.A. No.461 of 2025 is hereby vacated.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
AlokBalaram
