Ramalata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 11

¶16

to have proposed a vote of no confidence against him with a resolution and the requisition with the date of special meeting fixed to 15^th 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 30^th November, 2024. It is claimed that upon receiving Annexure-1, the petitioner approached opposite party No.3 on 3^rd 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 4^th 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 5^th 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 2 of 11

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 3^rd 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

¶23

Page 3 of 11

¶24

dated 3^rd 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Page 4 of 11

¶28

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 13^th 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 15^th 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 13^th 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

¶29

Page 5 of 11

¶30

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.

¶31

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 7^th 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 .

¶32

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

¶33

Page 6 of 11

¶34

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 13^th 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

¶35

Page 7 of 11

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Page 8 of 11

¶39

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.

¶40

12 . Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions in Arati Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha and others dated 10^th 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

¶41

Page 9 of 11

¶42

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 7^th 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

¶43

Page 10 of 11

¶44

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.

¶45

13 . Hence, it is ordered.

¶46

14 . In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶47

15 . As a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 13^th January, 2025 in I.A. No.461 of 2025 is hereby vacated.

¶48

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶49

AlokBalaram

¶50

Signature Not Verified