Dismissed¶31

Mithila Behera v. State of Odisha

Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 – S.24, S.24(2)(a), S.24(2)(c) – No confidence motion against petitioner

Orissa HC11 Sept 2025WP(C)/9740/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No confidence motion; Odisha Grama Panchayats Act 1964; Section 24; Section 24(2)(a); Section 24(2)(c); requisition Annexure-4; resolution Annexure-3; notice Annexure-5; no prescribed format or proforma; quorum of Ward Members; Kamala Tiria distinguished; Prahallad Dalei applied; Sulochana Sethy referred; Muktamanjari Sahoo referred; W.P.(C) No.9740 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; R.K. Pattanaik J.; dismissed 11.09.2025; IA No.5746 of 2025 vacated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed and the order dated 10th April, 2025 in IA No.5746 of 2025 stands vacated. ¶31

Mithila Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed and the order dated 10th April, 2025 in IA No.5746 of 2025 stands vacated.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice (Annexure-5) convening the no confidence motion is legally tenable where, as contended, opposite party No.3 did not receive a copy of the resolution along with the requisition (Annexure-4), i.e., compliance with Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The requisition (Annexure-4) was received by opposite party No.3 accompanied by the resolution (Annexure-3); the plea that the resolution was never received is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected; the notice (Annexure-5) fixing the motion for 16th April, 2025 is accordingly valid.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Opposite party No.3 fixed the date for the motion and sent copies of the requisition and resolution to all concerned including the petitioner; the claim that the requisition was never received along with the resolution is unacceptable.

¶23

Key takeaways

Even if not described in very many words, the requisition (Annexure-4) appears to be consequent upon the resolution (Annexure-3) with a request to opposite party No.3 to convene the special meeting.ratio¶23
Adopting the ratio in Prahallad Dalei (supra), no form or proforma is prescribed under law for the notice, resolution or requisition; what matters is the intention of the requisite number of members and the purpose of the resolution, and if such a resolution with a requisition is received, there is due compliance.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 — S.24, S.24(2)(a), S.24(2)(c) — No confidence motion against petitioner — Notice (Annexure-5) issued by opposite party No.3 fixing the motion for 16.04.2025 — Petitioner contended that opposite party No.3 did not receive a copy of the resolution (Annexure-3, dt.07.12.2024) along with the requisition (Annexure-4, dt.10.12.2024) and that the requisition did not mention the resolution, vitiating the notice — HELD: requisition was received accompanied by the resolution; copies of both were sent to all concerned including the petitioner; no form or proforma is prescribed for the resolution, requisition or notice, and receipt of the resolution with the requisition amounts to due compliance (following Prahallad Dalei); quorum existed for the resolution and absence of one Ward Member is immaterial; Smt. Kamala Tiria distinguished as there the resolution was never received — Writ petition dismissed; interim order dt.10.04.2025 in IA No.5746 of 2025 vacated. (R.K. Pattanaik, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9740 of 2025

¶2

Mithila Behera …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. S.P. Swain, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. A.N. Pattanayak, Advocate for O.P. Nos.6 and 7 Mr. I A. Acharya, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 8, 9, 11 to 16 CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 11.09.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 11 to 16.

¶13

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the issuance of notice vis-a-vis no confidence motion as at Annexure-5 by opposite party No.3 on the grounds stated.

¶14

Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that opposite party No.3 did not receive a copy of the resolution along with requisition i.e. Annexure-4, hence, such issuance of notice as per Annexure-5 is legally not tenable for non-compliance of Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The further submission is that even on a bare reading of the resolution

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

dated 7^th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3, it is not revealed that a motion was proposed by the requisition. The submission of Mr. Swain, learned counsel is that even in the requisition dated 10^th December, 2024 as per Annexure-4, nothing is mentioned about the resolution dated 7^th December, 2024. The contention is that in view of the requisition received as per Annexure-4, in absence of a copy of the requisition sent along with it, any such decision of opposite party No.3 not in terms with Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit, it is further submitted by Mr. Swain, learned counsel that in absence of the resolution being received by opposite party No.3, notice as per Annexure-5 could not have been issued acting upon the requisition i.e. Annexure-4. In support of such contention, Mr. Swain, learned counsel refers to the following decision, such as, Smt. Kamala Tiria Vrs. State of Orissa and others AIR 2001 Orissa 67 and Muktamanjari Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2010(II) OLR 473 with the contention that having not received a copy of the resolution along with requisition i.e. Annexure-4, the entire exercise at the instance of opposite party No. 3 dealing with a motion stands vitiated.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit would submit that not only the resolution was received so also the requisition and upon receipt of such requisition, opposite party No.3 proceeded further and issued the notice as per Annexure-5. It is further submitted that necessary verification of the signatures of the Ward Members of the GP concerned in connection with the no confidence

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

motion was directed as per Annexure-A/5 series. The submission is that opposite party No.3 having received the requisition was duty bound to fix up a date for a special meeting to be convened for the motion and accordingly, proceeded fixing the date of such motion on 16^th April, 2025 and hence, issued the notice i.e. Annexure-C/5 under challenge. It is submitted that the substance of the resolution is to be considered and it has been received by opposite party No.3 along with Annexure-4 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that nothing has been described therein while demanding motion is totally misconceived. Furthermore, the submission is that there is no proper format or proforma prescribed under law as to in what manner, a resolution is to be drawn up and also the requisition, hence, therefore, any such plea advanced by the petitioner is also liable to be rejected and in support of the above argument, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State cited the following decisions, such as, Sulochana Sethy Vrs. The Collector, Puri and others (2022) AIR (Orissa) 89 and Prahallad Dalei Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2015 SCC Online Ori 395 .

¶20

Recorded the submission of Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.6 and 7 and also Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 11 to 16, according to whom, they has been no illegality committed by opposite party No.3 as on a bare reading of Annexure-4 followed by the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5, it would appear that upon receiving such requisition along with a copy

¶21

Page 3 of 6

¶22

of the resolution that the date was fixed for the motion to be held on 16^th April, 2025.

¶23

Perused the resolution dated 7^th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3 and therein, the details of the discussion held have been narrated and the reason behind the motion to be initiated against the petitioner. In so far as Annexure-4 is concerned, even if it is not described in very many words but such requisition appears to be consequent upon the resolution i.e. Annexure-3 with a request to opposite party No.3 to convene the special meeting. That apart, considering the notice i.e. Annexure-5, the Court finds that opposite party No.3 fixed the date for the motion and sent the copies of the requisition and resolution to all concerned including the petitioner, so therefore, the claim of the petitioner that such requisition was never received along with the resolution is unacceptable. As far as the absence of one of the Ward Members is concerned, as it is pleaded by the petitioner referring to the counter affidavit of the State, the Court is not inclined to accept such a plea either for the reason that for the purpose of resolution, there has been a quorum and upon such resolution being passed, the Ward Members and Sarpanch moved opposite party No.3 with a request as per the requisition i.e. Annexure-4 to fix a date for the motion to be held.

¶24

Regarding the decision in Smt. Kamala Tiria (supra), Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that resolution proposed to be moved during the special meeting has to the received by the Sub-Collector for purpose of motion

¶25

Page 4 of 6

¶26

along with the requisition and in the case at hand, since it has not taken place, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed. But, on a proper reading of the above decision, the Court finds that the extract of the meeting held with the minutes of the discussion was sent to the Sub-Collector and under such circumstances, it has been held therein by this Court that the resolution was never received and hence, upon the requisition, the motion could not have been held. In the instant case, however, the requisition has been received by opposite party No.3 and it was accompanied with the resolution. Merely by referring to Annexure-4, it cannot be alleged that opposite party No.3 did not receive such resolution for the motion. In fact, considering the counter affidavit of the State and the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5, it is made to understand that opposite party No.3 did receive the resolution along with the requisition and thereafter, fixed the date for the motion on 16^th April, 2025. Having said that, the above decision relied upon by Mr. Swain, learned counsel of this Court is inapplicable.

¶27

As far as the other decisions placed reliance on by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State are concerned, in Prahallad Dalei (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider if any such notice issued by the Sub-Collector in respect of a no confidence motion is to be interfered with as therein the question was whether the motion was consequent upon a resolution contemplated under Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and finally held and concluded that no form and proforma has been prescribed either for the notice to be issued by the SubCollector for calling the members including Sarpanch and Naib

¶28

Page 5 of 6

¶29

Sarpanch as the case may be to attend the meeting and what is more important is the intention of the requisites number of members and the purpose of the resolution and if such a resolution with a requisition is received, there is due compliance. In the case at hand, there is no denial to the fact that the requisition was received and only question raised by the petitioner was about opposite party No.3 having not received a copy of the resolution but considering the notice i.e. Annexure-5 and the counter affidavit and specific reply of the State therein, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the plea of the petitioner regarding absence of resolution received by opposite party No.3 is wholly misconceived and hence, deserves to be rejected.

¶30

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶31

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10^th April, 2025 in IA No.5746 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result.

¶32

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶33

TUDU

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 12-Sep-2025 12:11:10

¶36

Page 6 of 6

Mithila Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithila Behera 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

Mir Adil Ali(Raju) Vs Udayanath Sahoo

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Pradhan

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Padhan

Satyanarayan Purohit Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Prabha Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Hrushikesh Nayak Vs State of Odisha