Sulochana Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-3 dated 20^th August, 2025 issued in connection with no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 25^th September, 2025 received from opposite party No.4 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not legally tenable for having not complied with the requirements of Sections 24(2)(a) and 24(4) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶16

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not served with the resolution and requisition accompanied with the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3, hence, there is non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. The further submission is that the motion could not

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

have been initiated against the petitioner, who is in-charge of Sarpanch and the same is not in consonance with Section 24(4) of the Act having been initiated before expiry of two years and six months. That apart, the entire exercise at the behest of opposite party No.4 is challenged referring to a decision of larger Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra Vrs. Collector, Kandhmal & another in W.A. No. 1367 of 2025 dated 29^th November, 2025 with the submission that when there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, the impugned notice dated 25^th August, 2025 at Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in law.

¶19

On the contrary, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that opposite party No.4 has issued the impugned notice at Annexure-3 upon receiving the requisition. The further submission is that the proposed resolution and requisition were sent along with the notice i.e. Annexure-3. Referring to the counter affidavit as at flag-G, it is submitted that the notice was issued and served on the petitioner personally and that such notice was sent with copies of the resolution and requisition revealed from Annexure-B/5. Further referring to Annexure-F/5 to the counter, it is submitted that the petitioner has received such notice on 6^th September, 2025 long before the motion was held on 29^th September, 2025 and hence, there is substantial compliance. The other ground with reference to Section 24(4) of the Act is concerned, in reply to the same, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that the petitioner has been holding the post of Naib Sarpanch

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

for nearly three years hence, the plea of the petitioner alleging that the motion has been held before expiry of two years and six months is misconceived. With such submission as above, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC pleads that the impugned notice has been issued by opposite party No.4 as per and in accordance with law and hence, not to be interfered with.

¶22

In course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from any such notice issued by opposite party No.4, there is a need for compliance of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. The submission is that the notice was also to be sent by post under certificate of posting with a copy thereof published at least seven days before motion to be held. In reply to the above, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State submits that such compliance has taken place and in any case, a proceeding for the meeting is not invalidated merely on such ground that the notice has not been received by any member of GP.

¶23

In so far as the decision in Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra) is concerned, the legal effect of Section 24(2)(a) to (e) of the Act has been considered with the conclusion reached at directing the matter to be placed before the Roster Bench for consideration. The Court is of the view that irrespective of any such judgment of the larger Bench hereinabove referred to the plea of the petitioner is to be independently examined on the grounds pleaded. In fact, the plea of the petitioner is that there has been no service of the resolution and requisition along with the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 but on a bare perusal of

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

Annexure-B/5 to the counter affidavit, it is made to reveal that the copies of the resolution and requisition have been sent along with the same and duly received by the petitioner. Such receipt of the notice with the annexures is also revealed from Annexure-5, F/5 that bears the signatures of all the members of the GP including the petitioner dated 6^th September, 2025. In so far as compliance of Section 24(2) is concerned, the counter affidavit reveals that there was a public notice seven days before the motion was held. With such notice having been issued by opposite party No.4 and said to have been personally served on the petitioner duly received and acknowledged, the petitioner cannot turn around and claim that there has been no service of notice. Rather, Annexure-F/5 clearly disclose the notice to have been served on the petitioner accompanied with the resolution and requisition. That apart, with the physical service of notice and public notice in terms of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act as made to reveal from the counter, it cannot be said that there is no compliance of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. Furthermore, a proceeding cannot be challenged or stands invalidated for a member having not received any such notice in view of Section 24(2)(e) of the Act. On a reference to Annexure-B/5 coupled with Annexure-F/5 to the counter affidavit, it is crystal clear that notice was issued by opposite No.4 and it was duly served on the petitioner well before the date fixed for the motion.

¶26

With regard to the other ground that the motion was held before expiry of two years and six months, the contention

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

of the petitioner in that regard is unacceptable for the reason that he was in-charge of the Sarpanch and has been in position as Naib Sarpanch for more than three years. So, therefore, the bar contained in Section 24(4) of the Act does not apply. In other words, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 on any such ground with reference to Section 24(4) of the Act. It is informed to the Court that in the meantime, the motion has been held on the date fixed but the result of the same has not been declared revealed from Annexure-H/5. In view of the Court’s interim order dated 23^rd September, 2025 since the plea advanced from the side of the petitioner fails, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the impugned notice as at Annexure-3 cannot be challenged on any of the grounds and therefore, the result of the motion held on the date fixed is required to be published.

¶29

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶30

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 23^rd September, 2025 in I.A. No. 15209 of 2025 is hereby vacated and hence, result of the motion to be declared immediately.

¶31

I.As. if any stand disposed of.

¶32

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶33

kabita

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:47:33

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Sulochana Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Nayak 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

Basanti Sahoo Vs Ramadebi Routray

Jagannath Jani Vs State of Odisha

Debasis Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Hari Nayak Vs Narayan Behera

Sai Pratik Das Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Sahu @ Gunu Vs State of Odisha