[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manamati Pujari vs State Of Odisha And Others on 3 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A No.1721 of 2025
In the matter of an appeal under clause-10 of the letters patent of Patna
High Court read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
from the Judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025.
----
Manamati Pujari .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellant - M/s. S.K. Dalai, J. Bhuyan,
B. Bhuyan & S. Mahapatra,
Advocates
For Respondents - Mrs. Suman Pattanayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
----
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 03.02.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
The Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat is in this Intra-Court appeal for
laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 13.10.2025
whereby his W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025 has been negatived. In that
petition, he had, in substance, called in question the proceedings of No
Confidence mainly on the ground that the statutory notice was not
accompanied by copies of requisition & proposed resolution.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argues
that the No Confidence Motion is fraught with infirmity, inasmuch as
the mandatory requirement of meeting notice being accompanied by
copies of requisition & proposed resolution was not met and thus, there
is a gross violation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Odisha Grama
Panchayat Act, 1964. He presses into service a Full Bench decision of
this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal, 2025 (III)
ILR-CUT-1221, in support of his contention.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents resists the
appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. She contends that the
requirement is that the notice should be accompanied by copies of the
requisition & proposed resolution; the mode of service pales into
insignificance if it is otherwise demonstrated that the Sarpanch received
notice & accompaniments from different sources; the postal parcel
weighed 20 grams and admittedly it reached hands of the appellant;
notice would weigh four or five grams and therefore, it should be
presumed that the remainder of the weight was of its accompaniments.
So contending, she seeks dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence
in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. We have very carefully perused the original records, which
learned AGA had secured on our direction and returned the same to her.
There is evidentiary material, namely, the certificate of posting to vouch
the contention that the notice of meeting sent by the Sub-Divisional
Officer under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has reached the hands of
appellant; however, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to
support the contention that the envelope sent by certificate of posting,
had contained accompaniments of the notice, namely, copies of
requisition & proposed resolution for No Confidence. This view is
supported by what A.B. Majumder's 'Law Relating to Notices' (8th
Edition) says. It also gains support from Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi
Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102. On the basis of weight of the envelope sent
through certificate of posting, one cannot hurriedly jump to the
assumption that it contained notice and copies of requisition & proposed
resolution. The letter relied upon by the learned AGA, mentioning
service of all this being a document generated post commencement of
litigation, does not earn much credence. This aspect has not been duly
discussed in the right perspective in the impugned order.
4.2. Learned counsel for the appellant is more than justified in telling
us that the Full Bench decision in Nabanita supra has held that the
provisions of Section 24 of the Act providing for removal of
Sarpanch/Naib Sarpanch are in the nature of law relating to election and
therefore, the same have to be construed as mandatory. In the said
decision, it is observed as under:
"(iv) As already mentioned, Sub-Section (2)(c) is clear &
emphatic in prescribing the procedure for issuance of notice
of No Confidence Motion. The structure is: Firstly, Notice
should be a minimum of seven (7) days. Secondly, it should
contain date, time & place of meeting. Thirdly, it should be
accompanied by a copy of requisition. Fourthly, it should
also be accompanied by a copy of „resolution proposed‟.
This provision employing the expression „such notice along
with a copy of the requisition and of the proposed
resolution‟ has been continuing on the Statute Book since
more than six decades. The Act has seen a plethora of
amendments till now, but the text of this provision has
conspicuously remained unaltered. Provisions of the kind
are made in the accumulated legislative wisdom gained
through years of experience. We add that when the text of a
statute is unambiguous, it does not admit any
interpretation. It has to be taken as it is. Maxwell on „The
Interpretation of the Statutes; Twelfth Edition by P. St. J.
Langan at Pg.29, writes;
"Where the language is plain and admits of but
one meaning, the task of interpretation can
hardly be said to arise.... Where, by the use of
clear and unequivocal language capable of only
one meaning, anything is enacted by the
legislature, it must be enforced however harsh or
absurd or contrary to common sense the result
may be. The interpretation of a statute is not to
be collected from any notions which may be
entertained by the court as to what is just and
expedient"
4.3. The above being said, learned AGA is right in telling us that the
No Confidence Motion if found to be defective, the proceedings in their
entirety cannot be quashed; the mandatory requirement of meeting
notice being accompanied by copies of requisition & proposed
resolution, if not complied with would mar a particular stage of the
proceedings. A different argument seeking to absolve the appellant from
any such proceeding, does not merit acceptance. In the fitness of things,
the matter needs to be remitted to the portals of Sub-Divisional
Officer/Competent Authority to the stage of issuing notice, which
necessarily has to have the accompaniments as mentioned and to
proceed with the matter to its logical conclusion. Therefore, all those
who were members of the Panchayat at the stage of issuing notice, can
participate in the meeting for No Confidence Motion. A few of them are
liable to be removed because of proceedings under Sections 25 & 26 of
the Act would pale into insignificance.
4.4. The last submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the
proceedings having been set at naught, his client should be permitted to
immediately resume the office does not much impress us, regard being
had to the nature of allegations and the proceedings that may eventually
culminate into her removal from a Public Office of pivotal importance
to the Panchayat. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, we do not
permit the Sarpanch to resume the office immediately as if there is no
cloud on her head. Much need not be deliberated in this regard.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part;
appellant's W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025 having been partly
favoured, the No Confidence Proceedings up to the stage of
issuance of notice are quashed; matter is remitted to the portal
of Sub-Divisional Officer/Competent Authority to proceed
afresh in accordance with law. Costs made easy.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd Day of February, 2026/Anisha
