Dismissed¶29

Kalpana Raj v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Sept 2025WP(C)/22740/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 24(2)(c) Orissa Grama Panchayats Act; motion; special meeting; fifteen days' notice; issuance versus delivery of notice; mandatory versus directory; service on members; prejudice; Annexure-3 notice dated 01.08.2025; meeting fixed 22.08.2025; Registered Post dispatch 13.08.2025; counter affidavit admission; Nirakar Sethi 2021 Vol.III ILR Cut 652; Sarat Padhi AIR 1988 Orissa 116 (Full Bench); W.P.(C) No.22740 of 2025; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; order dated 24.09.2025; writ petition dismissed; result of motion in sealed cover to be declared forthwith; interveners' IAs allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a direction that the result of the motion kept in sealed cover be declared forthwith; urgent certified copy as per rules. ¶29

Kalpana Raj Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with a direction that the result of the motion kept in sealed cover be declared forthwith; urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 1st August, 2025 (Annexure-3) convening the special meeting for the motion is vitiated for absence of a clear fifteen days' period in terms of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1664. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

The fifteen days' margin under Section 24(2)(c) is to be counted between the date of issuance of the notice and the date fixed for the meeting/voting, not from the date of delivery of the notice on the member.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the conclusion in Nirakar Sethi (which rests on the Full Bench judgment in Sarat Padhi), the margin between the date of the meeting and the time of issuance of notice is mandatory, while service of notice on the members is directory.

¶25

Key takeaways

There was due compliance with Section 24(2)(c): the notice issued on 1st August, 2025 fixed the special meeting for 22nd August, 2025, allowing a clear fifteen days' margin; the mode and time of receipt (any time after 13th August, 2025) is immaterial, no illegality is attributable to opposite party No.2, and the notice cannot be questioned on this ground.ratio¶27
The petitioner failed to prove prejudice: he did not deny receiving the notice some time before the special meeting held pursuant to Annexure-2 and had knowledge of the meeting fixed and of the Court's order regarding the motion; absent proved prejudice and with a clear fifteen days' margin, the Court declined to intervene.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (R.K. Pattanaik, J.; order dated 24.09.2025) dismisses a writ petition challenging a notice (Annexure-3, dated 1st August, 2025) convening a special meeting for a motion, taken under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1664 (year as printed) for want of a 'clear fifteen days'. Held: the fifteen days' margin runs from the date of issuance of the notice to the date fixed for the meeting, not from its delivery on the member; the notice requirement and the margin are mandatory while service of notice on members is directory, relying on Nirakar Sethi (2021 Vol.III ILR Cut 652), which follows the Full Bench in Sarat Padhi (AIR 1988 Orissa 116). A notice issued 01.08.2025 fixing the meeting for 22.08.2025 satisfies the margin; receipt thereafter (post 13.08.2025, by Registered Post as admitted by the State) without proved prejudice does not vitiate the notice. Petition dismissed; result of the motion kept in sealed cover directed to be declared forthwith.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.22740 of 2025

¶3

Kalpana Raj

¶4

…. Petitioner MR. A.K. Das, Advocate M/s. Sisir Kumar Purohit, Advocate & Associates

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Ms. B. Dash, ASC Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate Mr. B.R. Tripathy, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

24.09.2025

Order No.

All the I.As filed by the interveners are hereby allowed.

¶16

One more I.A. is filed today by an intervener and the same be registered forthwith and is also allowed.

¶17

Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the interveners and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

¶18

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice at Annexure-3 dated 1^st August, 2025 on the grounds stated.

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

The sole ground of questioning the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 is absence of clear fifteen days before the motion being held in terms of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1664 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶21

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 15 (fifteen) days’ notice is a mandatory compliance but it has been received by the petitioner much later, after having been sent through a Registered Post, even admitted by the State in the counter affidavit. For the non-compliance of Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act, the further submission is that since the margin of fifteen days is to be counted from the date of delivery of the notice on the petitioner, as such, the same is not complied with, even State having admitted to have sent it through Registered Post on 13^th August, 2025, therefore, the entire exercise is vitiated and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Ms. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the interveners, on the other hand, submits that there is due compliance of Section 24 (2) (c) of the Act, inasmuch as, notice of fifteen days was allowed clearly revealed from Annexure-3. Referring to a decision of this Court in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021 Vol.III ILR Cut 652 , it is further submitted that notice of fifteen days margin between the date of issuance of such notice and motion to be held is mandatory and rest to be directory and such is the view of the Court for the judgment of a Full Bench in Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Odisha and others AIR 1988 Orissa 116 and hence, on any such ground, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-6

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

cannot be challenged by the petitioner, who is, otherwise, not prejudiced since having knowledge about the motion to be held on the date fixed.

¶25

In fact, as per the resolution of the Ward Members, the requisition was received by opposite party No.3 and it was followed by the requisition dated 4^th July, 2025 at Annexure-1 and at last, followed by the impugned notice dated 1^st August, 2025 i.e. Annexure-3. The sole ground of challenge, in so far as the decision of opposite party No.3 is concerned, is rested on absence of clear fifteen days of margin period post-delivery of such notice received by the petitioner. The decision in Nirakar Sethi (supra) referring to the judgment in Sarat Padhi case referred to therein, it has been held and concluded that Section 24 (2) (c) of the Act is divided in two three parts, firstly, requirement of a notice; secondly, fixing a margin of time between the date of notice and date of voting; and finally, service of notice on the members and in so far as the first of the requirement is concerned, the same is mandatory and also a fifteen days margin between the date of meeting from the time of issuance of notice but the last one, with regard to the service of notice to the members, the same is directory. In the case at hand, as it revealed from Annexure-3 that the same was issued on 1^st August, 2025 with a date fixed i.e. 22^nd August, 2025 for the purpose of special meeting to be convened for the motion and as such, there is a clear fifteen days margin allowed. In so far as the plea is concerned and contention of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for him are concerned, the Court is not

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

inclined to accept that a margin of fifteen days is to be counted from the date of delivery of notice. Such is the conclusion of the Court in view of the decision in Nirakar Sethi (supra). In other words, the Court is of the final view that there has been due compliance of Section 24(2) (c) of the Act with a fifteen days’ notice followed by a date fixed for the special meeting to be held for the motion and the same cannot be challenged on any such ground of having received it in-between with less number of days left. In other words, irrespective of the modes of service of notice on the petitioner and received any time after 13^th August, 2025 as there has been compliance of Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act with a clear fifteen days allowed, there is no illegality committed by opposite party No.2 and hence, on such ground, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 cannot be questioned. As to receiving the notice with some amount of delay, it is also required for the petitioner to show and satisfy prejudice having taken place. The petitioner did not deny having received the notice some time before the special meeting held pursuant to Annexure-2 and was having the knowledge about the meeting fixed and the Court’s order regarding the motion to be held and under such circumstances, it cannot be said that he was in any way prejudiced thereby. In absence of any such prejudice being proved and as there has been a notice as per Annexure-3 with a clear fifteen days’ margin, the Court is not inclined to intervene and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is further directed that the result of the motion kept in sealed cover shall be declared forthwith.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶31

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶32

Balaram

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:26:59

¶35

Page 5 of 5

Kalpana Raj v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Raj v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation

Pradyumna Kumar Praharaj Vs State of Odisha

Debendra Nath Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Archana Patra Vs Dillip Kumar Patra

Suraj Kumar Sahu @ Papu Vs State of Odisha

Fatama Bibi Vs State of Odisha