Satyajeet Gamango vs Sstate Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 44 Ori

Orissa High Court

Satyajeet Gamango vs Sstate Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 6 January, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR                      W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025

       Satyajeet Gamango                    ....          Petitioner

                                         Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate

                                 -Versus-

      SState of Odisha & others         .... Opposite Parties
                                Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, ASC
                             Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate (O.P.No.7)
                                And
                        W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025

       Laxmi Sabar                          ....          Petitioner

                                         Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate

                                 -Versus-

      SState of Odisha & others           .... Opposite Parties
                                 Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, ASC
                               Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate (O.P.No.5)

                CORAM:
                JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                DATE OF HEARING: 15.09.2025
                DATE OF JUDGMENT:06.01.2026


      1.

Both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are disposed of by the following judgment since arising out of a common cause of action involving the parties.

2. W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025: Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned

notices dated 11th July, 2025 and 15th July, 2025 issued by the learned Sub-Collector, Gunupur, namely, opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion proposed for removal of opposite party No.6, the Chairman of the concerned Panchayat Samiti with initiation of an action under Section 46-B of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds inter alia that there is non-compliance of Section 46-B(2)(c) and (f) thereof for him having not been served with the resolution and requisition therewith.

3. W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025: Present writ petition is filed by the Chairman, Gudari Panchayat Samiti questioning the legality of the notices under challenge issued at the behest of opposite party No.3, namely, Sub-Collector, Gunupur for the vote of no confidence under Section 46-B of the Act on the premise that the service of notice is defective and it has not been accompanied with the resolution and requisition and the same is invalid in not providing seven clear days' notice and therefore, the entire exercise has been vitiated and hence, such action is liable to be quashed.

4. The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is a member of Karlaghati GP and assumed office in after an election held and having received thumping majority therein and by claiming so, it is pleaded on record that the action initiated under Section 46-B of the Act is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that a date was fixed for the motion to be held

but it was adjourned but such an adjournment is not permissible in view of Section 46-B(2)(f) of the Act and not only that, the petitioner was not served with copies of the resolution and requisition. It is also pleaded that there has been no seven days' prior notice before the motion to be held as the same is required under law, hence, therefore, the learned Sub-Collector, Gunupur (opposite party No.3) did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and therefore, the impugned notices dated 11th July, 2025 and 15th July, 2025 are outrightly invalid. Apart from the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, such action under Section 46-B of the Act is questioned in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025, wherein, the petitioner is an elected MLA by pleading that he has a right to participate and vote during the motion but could not be able to do so since there has been no notice issued and for having no prior intimation about the same and it was also on account of him being not available at the relevant point of time since had been to his constituency for meetings as a Member of the Standing Committee-V, 2025-26 of the Odisha Legislative Assembly and also on a visit to Angul and Keonjhar. The pleading is that in view of the letter of the Government dated 30th September, 2009 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department meetings of the Panchayat Samiti are not to be convened during the Assembly/Parliament Sessions in order to facilitate the MLAs and MPs to attend and to take part in the deliberations of such meetings and therefore, opposite party No.3 could not have fixed the date

for the motion on 24th July, 2025 as one of the MPs and a member having a right to vote could not remain present which was also duly intimated shortly after. With the above pleadings on record, the petitioners questioned the decision of opposite party No.3 vis-a-vis no confidence motion to be held and convened on the date fixed.

5. By order dated 22nd July, 2025 in IA No.12064 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025, it has been directed that the motion shall be held on 24th July, 2025 without the result of the same being published until leave is granted by this Court and hence, it has been withheld as an interim measure.

6. Opposite party No.3 filed counter affidavit and pleaded therein that no illegality was committed in relation to the vote of no confidence proposed by the members of the Panchayat Samiti against the Chairman, Gudari Panchayat Samiti and by following the provisions of Section 46-B of the Act, it has been conducted. It is also pleaded that along with the notices, copies of the resolution and requisition were sent and served on the members of the Panchayat Samiti and hence, there is due compliance of Section 46-B(2)(c) of the Act. It is further pleaded that seven days' prior notice was issued for the purpose of motion and as such, there has been no departure therefrom. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025 is concerned, no prejudice was caused to him as he was not required to attend the 5th Parliamentary Session, however,

since the meeting in question is not a general meeting but a meeting to be held under Section 46-B of the Act, such instruction dated 30th September, 2009 of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department is inapplicable and hence, opposite party No.3 did not commit any error or illegality in fixing the date for the motion on 24th July, 2025.

7. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the private opposite parties.

8. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the facts pleaded on record submits that the impugned notices have not been sent along with the copies of the resolution and requisition, hence, there is non-compliance of Section 46-B (2)(c) of the Act. It is contended that by the time, the notices were received, less than seven days were available for the motion to be held and therefore, the entire of the proceeding has become invalid. The further contention is that the special meeting was fixed to 19th July, 2025 but for reasons best known, it was held on 24th July, 2025 and could not have been adjourned in view of Section 46-B(2)(f) of the Act. Not only that, according to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel, the Member of Parliament, Koraput was not available during the time when the motion was held as he was busy in 5th Parliamentary Session and him having a right to vote in the motion, he was deprived of and in that regard, opposite party No.3 completely lost sight of the instruction of the

Government in Panchayati Raj Department dated 30th September, 2009, wherein, it has been conveyed to all the Collectors in the State not to convene any such meetings of the Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad during the Assembly/Parliamentary Sessions for enabling the MLAs and PMs to attend the same and to take part therein. It has been contended that not only the schedule of the meeting was fixed which has inconvenienced the local MLA and MP but has also been held during the Parliamentary Session, details of which have been pleaded on record and therefore, under such circumstances and on the grounds stated, the very initiation of the vote of no confidence against the Chairman, Gudari, Panchayat Samiti deserves to be quashed not being in accordance with Section 46-B(2)(c) and (f) of the Act.

9. On the contrary, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State submits that there has been no any wrong or illegality committed by opposite party No.3, who, upon receiving the requisition consequent upon the resolution of the members of the Samiti, was duty bound to fix up a date for the special meeting to be held for the said purpose but in order to allow more time for all the members of the Samiti to respond, the second notice was issued and ultimately on 24th July, 2025, it was held. The contention is that the date of the special meeting was only rescheduled, hence, it was deferred and not an adjournment so to say and therefore, Section 46-B(2)(f) of the Act does not apply. Furthermore, according to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC, the local MLA was having no right to vote and

in any case, he was not required to attend any Assembly Session by that time. The further contention is that the local MP was informed about the special meeting for the motion duly served with the notice sent along with the resolution and requisition and similarly, the local MLA, which is a matter of record and therefore, there has been no violation any of the provisions of the Act. Before the special meeting was held on the deferred date, there is compliance of seven days' notice as required as per Section 46-B(2)(c) of the Act and in such view of the matter, it is finally contended that the impugned notices cannot be challenged on any such grounds as pleaded by the petitioners.

10. Admittedly, the first notice is dated 11th July, 2025 and the second one dated 15th July, 2025 issued by opposite party No.3. The first meeting was deferred and ultimately, the motion was held on 24th July, 2025. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025, he being a Member of Legislative Assembly of Gunupur has had a right to participate and also to vote in view of Section 18(2) of the Act even in respect of the no confidence motion. The impugned notices stand marked as Annexures-1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025. According to the Chairman, Gudari Panchayat Samiti, she had to inform opposite party No.3 to supply copies of the resolution and requisition with a representation dated 17th July, 2025 as at Annexure-2 in W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025 but it was in vain. It is alleged that the notices did not accompany the copies of the proposed

resolution and requisition issued by opposite party No.3. However, referring to the counter affidavit, it is pleaded by the State that there is compliance as the notices were dispatched by Post and it contained both the resolution and requisition. It is claimed that each and every Member of the Panchayat Samiti was issued with the notices carrying the resolution and requisition. The details of the Postal Tracking Reports showing service of notices on the petitioners have been described in the counter of opposite party No.3.

11. On a reading of the counter affidavits in both the cases, the Court finds that all such notices were sent by Post mentioning therein about the resolution and requisition being annexed to it and sent to all including the Chairman and other members of the Panchayat Samiti. In the notices, there has been seven days' time allowed for the members to respond and participate in the special meeting to be held on 24th July, 2025. The contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners is that there has been receipt of notice for the motion having less than seven days left and hence, it is not in accordance with Section 46-B(2)(c) of the Act. According to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, seven days period is counted from the date when the notice is signed and the special meeting to be held and not on and after receiving such notice by the members of the Panchayat Samiti. There is no denial to the fact that the notices allowed seven days margin for the motion to be held. For the second notice dated 15th

July, 2025, the special meeting was fixed to be held on 24 th July, 2025, which means, clear seven days' time was allowed before the motion to be held. As to the argument advanced by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel alleging non-compliance of Section 46-B(2)(c) of the Act with the claim that less than seven days was left when the notice was received by the petitioners, the Court is completely in disagreement with any such plea for the reason that the period of prior notice is counted from the date, when the notice is signed and not when, it has been received by a Member of the Panchayat Samiti or for that matter, the Chairman of the Samiti, against whom, the motion has been proposed. If any such plea is accepted, a motion cannot be held at all as the members opposing the same may avoid receiving the notices. Being alive to the ground realities and possibility of frustrating any such motion to be held avoiding receipt of notices, the provision has been introduced leaving seven days' time for each and every one of the Panchayat Samiti to respond and participate in the deliberation with the notices served on them in the manner contemplated. The Court reiterates its view that seven days prior notice is to be considered from the date the notice signed and not from any time thereafter, when the same has been received. If a notice is dated and signed but dispatched with a considerable delay, for instance, a day or two before the date fixed for motion and the same is demonstrated on record, in such a situation, a plea of prejudice may be considered and examined. In other words,

unless the members of the Panchayat Samiti, who demonstrate the delay in serving of notice having no time to reply and respond and even participate and it has resulted in serious prejudice to them, a Court is not to intervene. The intent and purport of the law is that prior notice is necessary so that the members of the Panchayat Samiti can purposefully participate and discuss in the debate and deliberate upon the proposed resolution before the motion is held. So, therefore, the contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners that less than seven days' time was left for the Chairman of the Samiti and also the local MLA to oppose the motion is liable to be rejected. At the cost of repetition, it has to be held that the notices were duly served as is revealed from the record and the copies of the resolution and requisition had been sent therewith. Even though the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti claimed to have submitted a representation dated 17th July, 2025 but in view of the counter affidavit of opposite party No.3, the Court is not inclined to hold that there has been any deviation in the issuance of the notices to the members of the Panchayat Samiti for the motion dated 24th July, 2025.

12. As regards, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025, it is the plea that he could not attend the special meeting on the date fixed which was convened despite the standing instruction of the Government dated 30th September, 2009, a copy of which is at Annexure-4. On a reading of the said letter addressed to all the Collectors, it was conveyed by the

Government that during Assembly/Parliamentary Sessions meetings of the Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad are not to be held so as to facilitate the MLAs and MPs to attend and take part in the deliberations of the said meetings. According to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC, such an instruction of the Government is merely advisory and that apart, it does not relate to a special meeting called for a vote of no confidence. The further contention is that the local MLA did not have the right to vote and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. In reply to the above, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel submits that as an MLA or MP being the members of the Panchayat Samiti, both of them are having the rights to vote in view of Section 18(2) of the Act, hence, the argument advanced from the side of the State is incorrect.

13. Section 18(2) of the Act stipulates that all the members of the Samiti despite sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall have the right to vote at the meetings of the Samiti. As per Section 16(1) of the Act every Block shall have a Samiti consisting of members, namely, (a) Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Samiti elected in the manner provided in sub-section (3) thereof; one member elected directly on the basis of adult suffrage from every constituency within the Block; (c) Sarpanch of the GPs situate within the Block; (d) every member of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly representing constituencies which comprise fully or partly the area of the Samiti; and (e) every member of the Council of State, who is registered as an elector within the

area of the Samiti. On a reading of the above provision, it is made to understand that an MLA and MP are members of the Samiti and each and every member of the Samiti specified in Section 16(1) of the Act shall have the right to vote at the meetings of the Samiti. In fact, Section 18 of the Act deals with conduct of business of the Samiti and the manner in which the meetings of the Samiti are to be held and also of the Standing Committees. Admittedly, there is no specific provision barring any such member of the Legislative Assembly or MP, the right to vote during a motion. Rather, Section 18(2) of the Act stipulates that all the members of the Samiti are having the rights to vote at the meetings of the Samiti which obviously includes a meeting for the motion. To claim that the right to vote relates to all other regular meetings of the Samiti and not the special meeting for the vote of no confidence thereby excluding an MLA and MP, the right to vote, as has been contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC is not really comprehended. According to the Court, the Member of the Legislative Assembly representing constituency situate within a Panchayat Samiti area is considered a member of the Samiti and does have the right to vote even on a no confidence motion being a part of the elected body integral to the Samiti itself. Section 16 of the Act lists members of the Panchayat Samiti including directly elected members, Sarpanch and crucially every member of the House of the People and Legislative Assembly representing the constituencies which compromise either

wholly or in part or the area of the Samiti. In other words, since the MLAs are members of the Samiti, they are to participate in the proceedings including election and removal of the Chairman of the Samiti via no confidence motion. In essence, the Act includes the State Legislatures as members of the Samiti conferring on them the voting power in such significant matters.

14. The Apex Court in Seema Sarkar Vrs. Executive Officer and others 2019 SCC Online SC 639 decided on 1st May, 2019 held that an elected Member of Parliament could become a part of the quorum for a no confidence motion initiated against the Head of a Panchayat Samiti and concluded that if a person has been elected to an office through democratic process and when such person loses the confidence of the representative, who elected him, then any such representative should necessarily have a democratic right to remove the office bearer, in whom, they do not have the confidence and while referring to the provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 and finally observed that in no way, it is to exclude an MP much less expressly from participating in the special meeting and vote of no confidence initiated and as a matter of fact, such provision in the Regulation to be an inclusive one and explicitly permits all the members to participate in the special meeting. In fact, in the decision (supra), the Apex was posed with a question relating to inclusion or exclusion of a Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory of

Andaman and Nicobar Islands is also an ex-official member of the Panchayat Samiti for reckoning the quorum of a special meeting vis-à-vis a motion against the Head of the Panchayat Samiti and whether he can exercise the right to vote during such motion within the provisions of the Regulation under consideration. Referring to Article 243-C of the Constitution of India and also provisions of the Regulation, it was held therein by the Apex Court that there is no express exclusion of other members of the Panchayat Samiti referable to Section 107(3) of the Regulation from exercising their vote on a motion of no confidence. It has been further observed that the category of persons mentioned in Section 107(3) of the Regulation are also in one sense elected representatives (though not by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area) and therefore, their participation in voting during the motion has been permitted by the Regulations and the Rules and that cannot be undermined on the basis of the common law principle, so long as the statutory provisions govern the field. Having had the discussion as above, in the context of the present case with reference to Sections 16(1) read with 18(2) of the Act, it would not be incorrect to conclude that a Member of Parliament and also an MLA being the members of the Panchayat Samiti do have the right to vote during motion proposed against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Samiti, as the case may be.

15. In course of argument, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State refers to Section 18(3) of the Act to hold that MLAs and MPs are debarred from voting in special meetings under Section 46-B of the Act. The contention is that the MLA is entitled to notice and shall have the right to take part in the proceeding at every meeting of the Panchayat Samiti but shall not have a right to vote as provide Section 18 of the Act is on account of a decision by the Government in the year 1991-92 after amendments were introduced in the Act with the necessary clarification issued therein. A copy of the letter of the Under Secretary to Government dated 5th August, 1992 in Panchayati Raj (GP), Department is referred to by Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC to submit that a Member of Legislative Assembly is entitled to notice and shall have the right to take part in the proceeding at every meeting of the Panchayat Samiti but cannot have a right to vote as provided under Section 18 of the Act. On a reading of the instruction of the Government to all the Collectors on the subject of membership in Panchayat Samiti, it is made to reveal that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti as elected members are having right to vote including the non- official members of the Samiti elected under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 16, whereas, the non-official members specified under sub-section 1)(e) thereof and also the Chairman of the local body, such as, Municipality, NAC etc. situate within the Block mentioned under sub-section (1)

(f) and (g) besides the official members under clauses (b) and

(c) are having no voting rights. But, from Section 18 of the Act, the right to vote has been conferred on all the members of Samiti. In sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, the members referred to in Clauses (d) and (e) are having the rights to nominate persons to represent them in any such meeting of the Samiti except a meeting convened under Section 46-B of the Act, where, any of them, who cannot attend the meeting due to other engagements, such nominated persons shall have the right to speak and take part in the proceeding but shall not be entitled to vote and in the considered view of the Court, it does not mean to debar an MLA or MP, the right to vote. In a special meeting for the motion under Section 46-B of the Act, such a member referred to in clauses (d) and (e) and Section 16(1) of the Act shall have to be present to vote to which the persons nominated are not entitled to and so to say, no any executive instruction can really override the same.

16. Furthermore, the standing instruction of the Government dated 30th September, 2009, in the considered view of the Court, is advisory in nature as rightly pointed by Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. A no confidence motion for a Panchayat Samiti in the State can be held even during a Parliament/Assembly Sessions as the Act and Rules focus on requisition by the members (1/3rd) and time line fixed with no explicit bar. In fact, a special meeting for a no confidence motion is called on a requisition received from 1/3rd of the Samiti's members. The Sub-Divisional Officer must have to

respond to the requisition received from the members of the Samiti. In fact, Section 46-B of the Act outlined the procedural steps but does not specifically mention any such prohibition of the special meeting from being held during the State and Central Legislative Sessions. The law provides a clear procedure for a no confidence motion and as such, there is no explicit provision in Act and Rules preventing any such meeting to be convened during the Assembly/Parliament Sessions as the statutory requirements, such as, the members' requisition and timely convening the special meeting as the main parameters. So therefore, the conclusion of the Court is that the standing instruction of 2009 of the State Government in panchayat Raj Department cannot be basis to claim that the special meeting could not have been held on the date fixed as the Act does not specifically prescribe any bar in that regard either expressly or even by necessary implication. With the above discussion, it has to be held and concluded by the Court that notices were issued for the motion and it was held on 24th July, 2025 and such notice allowed seven days period for each and every member of the Panchayat Samiti to respond and hence, in accordance with Section 46-B of the Act. That apart, it cannot be said and even been demonstrated by any means that the local MLA and MP did not have the time to respond to the motion and any such intimation received from them was after the special meeting was over. Besides the above, the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and all other members appear to have received the notices sent by

Post duly proved on record by the State, hence, there is due compliance of the provisions of the Act.

17. As far as Section 46-B(2)(f) of the Act is concerned, the Court is of the humble view that it is a case of deferment of the motion and not an adjournment. In a given situation, a date may be re-scheduled for the motion to be held. But, once on the date fixed, the meeting is convened for the motion, it cannot be adjourned, which is barred under in view of the above provision. Law clearly prohibits adjournment and not deferment of the motion. In the case at hand, though, the first notice was issued but for the reason stated in the counter, the motion was rescheduled and it was primarily to enable the members of the Samiti, a reasonable time to prepare themselves and to participate in the special meeting. The Act does not prohibit any such deferment of the date for the special meeting as it only bars an adjournment once it is held. A special meeting is called only for the purpose of a debate and deliberation on the motion proposed and after it was convened, the same cannot be adjourned since prohibited under Section 46-B(2)(f) of the Act and not deferment of the same. So therefore, the Court, with due respect, is not inclined to accept the above argument advanced by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, the irresistible conclusion of the Court is that the matter on the motion already held and concluded sans merit for any kind of intervention by this Court.

18. Accordingly, it is ordered.

19. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

20. As a necessary corollary, the interim order of this Court dated 22nd July, 2025 passed in IA No.12064 of 2025 corresponding to W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Tudu