Sunita Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4249 of 2026

¶2

Sunita Kanhar

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. L. Pradhan, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties represented through the Commissionercum-Secretary Panchayat & Water Resources Department, Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar.

¶7

2. Collector & District Magistrate, Phulbani, Kondhamal

¶8

3. District Panchayat Officer, Kondhamal

¶9

4. Sub-Collector, Baliguda, Kondhamal

¶10

5. Block Development Officer, Chakapad, Kondhamal

¶11

6. Sabyasachi Sahoo

¶12

Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

¶13

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶14

ORDER

¶15

13.02.2026 W.P.(C) No. 4249 of 2026 & I.A. No.3138 of 2026

¶16

Order No.

¶17

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶18

Page 1 of 10

¶19

Assailing the legality of the notice to conduct the no-confidence motion dated 28.01.2026 (vide Annexures-3 and 4), the Petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Bapalamendi-B Gram Panchayat under Chakapada Block, has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has never received the notice and, as such, the no-confidence motion scheduled to be held on 17.02.2026 ought not to take place.

¶21

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-2 of the Writ Petition, which is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference;

¶22

“That, this writ petition is being preferred challenging the legality and validity of Notice No.513 dt. 28.01.2026 issued by the SubCollector, Baliguda(opp.party no. 4) vide Annexure-3 to conduct the No-Confidence Motion on 17.02.2026 at about 11.00 A.M. against the petitioner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the provisions u/S 24(2)(a) to (d)¹ of the O.G.P.Act have not been complied with.”

¶23

1 “ 24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch-

¶24

(1) xxx xxx xxx

¶25

(2) In convening a meeting under sub-section (1) and in the conduct of business at such meeting the procedure shall be in accordance with such rules, as may be prescribed, subject however to the following provisions, namely:-

¶26

(a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting;

¶27

(b) the requisition shall be addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer;

¶28

(c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisition shall fix the date, hour and place of such meeting and give notice of the same to all the members holding office on the date such notice along with a copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution, atleast fifteen clear days before the date so fixed;

¶29

Page 2 of 10

¶30

The grounds of challenge have been reiterated in paragraph-9 of the Writ Petition, which are culled out hereunder for convenience of reference;

¶31

“9. That, with the above mentioned fact and circumstances petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the Notice dt. 28.01.2026 vide Annexure-3 and notice dt. 29.01.2026 vide Annexure-4 with the following grounds:-

¶32

A)That, as per meeting dt. 29.10.2026 vide Annexure-1, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Baliguda & B.D.O., Chakapad and hold that there is no basis against the petitioner as alleged.

¶33

B) That, again on representation dt. 04.11.2026 vide Annexure-2 some of the ward members having been instigated by others and filed representation against the petitioner to bring no-confidence motion against the petitioner with false and concocted allegations.

¶34

C) That, on the basis of the representation vide Annexure-1, the SubCollector, Baliguda and B.D.O., Chakapad had conducted an field enquiry and hold that the allegations made against the petitioner has no basis, how the SubCollector again directed vide Annexure-3 to conduct No-Confidence motion and a secrete voting against the petitioner vide Annexure-3.

¶35

(d) the aforesaid notice shall be sent by post under certificate of posting and a copy thereof shall be published at least seven days prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice-board of the Samiti;”

¶36

Page 3 of 10

¶37

D) That, the petitioner is officiating the post of Sarapanch Bapalamendi- B Gram Panchyat since 10.03.2022, without any allegation against her before any higher authority, All of sudden the annexure-3 & 4 has been made and the petitioner has been astonished for the same.

¶38

E) That, as the petitioner is going to be completed the term of Sarpanch of Bapalmendi-B Gram Panchayat, on last part of his tenure, she is to face noconfidence motion with false, fabricated and concocted allegation having no basis, so the requisition for no confidence motion, so also the Notice fixing 17.02.2026 vide Annexuire-3 & 4 are illegal, void and liable to be quashed. F) That, the larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide its Judgment dt. 29.11.2025 passed in W.A. No.1367/2025 in case of Nabanita Kapat Patra Vs. Collector, Kondhamal & others have hold that

¶39

xxx xxx xxx

¶40

"Non-receipt of Notice by a member is one thing and giving of Notice is another. Once notice is given, its validity has to be adjudged in the light of what has been prescribed inter alia under clause (a) to (d) of Section 24(2)¹ . Where Notice has been given by the sub-Divisional Officer and it is received by the candidate concerned, the case does not travel to the precincts of clause (e)² of Section 24(2).

¶41

2 24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2)(e) the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that the notice has not been received by any member ;

¶42

Page 4 of 10

¶43

In the above circumstances, the Reference having been accepted is answered as above".

¶44

The Registry to place the matter at the hands of the Roaster Bench for consideration.

¶45

xxx xxx xxx

¶46

G) That, the larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court has already hold that once notice is given its validity has to be adjudged in the light of what has been prescribed intra-alia under clause (a) to (d) of Section 24(2)¹ of O.G.P. Act.

¶47

H) That, as per provision of Section 24(2)(d)¹ of the Act, no notice has been sent to the petitioner by postal service i.e. by speed post as the o provision of under certificate of posting & regd. Post in postal service has been stopped)

¶48

I) That, the Notification for Three Tire Gram Panchayat Election is going to be held shortly by the State Govt, so the No Confidence Motion should not be held now and it will not been filled up by fresh election.”

¶49

On the basis of such pleadings, the Petitioner seeks the following relief;

¶50

“It is therefore prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of Mandamus calling the opp.parties to show cause as to why:

¶51

i. The No-Confidence Notice" dt. 28.01.2026 vide Annexure-3 & 4 so also the No confidence motion to be held on 17.02.26 will not be quashed, as it has not fulfilled the term and condition of the no confidence motion have not been

¶52

Page 5 of 10

¶53

complied with the Section 24(2)(a) to (d)¹ of the Act.

¶54

ii. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble court would deem fit and proper.

¶55

If the opp.parties fail to show cause or show insufficient or false case made the said Rule Nisi absolute and allow the writ petition. xxx xxx xxx”

¶56

To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra Vs. Collector, Kandhamal & others³ as can be seen from the extract of the pleadings as above. Para-4.7 of the said judgment has been quoted in ground No.F.

¶57

The requisitionists of the notice have filed an intervention application as I.A. No.3138 of 2026 (Manoj Kumar Pradhan and Gagan Chand Kanhar).

¶58

So far as the intervention is concerned, referring to the recitals of the affidavit as mentioned in the intervention petition, an objection is raised that since the affidavit is defective, the same ought not to be considered.

¶59

The affidavit of the intervention petition reads as under;

¶60

“ AFFIDAVIT 1. Manoj Kumar Pradhan, aged about 39 years, S/o-Ugresen Pradhan, Vill-

¶61

3 Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal , 2025 (III) ILR-CUT-1221

¶62

Page 6 of 10

¶63

Lujurumunda, Po-Katimaha, PS-Tikabali, DistKandhamal, Occupation-Cultivator.

¶64

Father's name: Ugresen Pradhan

¶65

Number of proceedings pending in the High Court or would be instituted(Caveat): No 4. Statement of Facts: As per averments in the CRLMC petition.

¶66

That, the facts stated are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of the deponent.”

¶67

(Emphasised)

¶68

9-A. Since the affidavit is an integral part of any petition, considering the paragraph-4 thereof which relates to “CRLMC petition”, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said intervention petition cannot be taken into account.

¶69

Hence, the I.A. No.3138 of 2026 for intervention stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel for the State, as per the direction of this Court dated 10.02.2026, has submitted instructions, which are taken on record.

¶70

On bare perusal of the said instructions, it is seen that the notice of no confidence motion was sent to the Petitioner by speed post on 31.01.2026.

¶71

The receipt of the speed post and the tracking report be treated as part of this order.

¶72

11-A. Learned counsel for the State has further placed on record the acknowledgement of the noconfidence motion through letter No.4056 dated

¶73

Page 7 of 10

¶74

01.12.2025 served on 12 persons, including the Petitioner.

¶75

It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the finding of the larger bench in para-4.7 the writ petition merits interference and referred that “non-receipt of Notice by a member is one thing and giving of Notice is another. Once notice is given, its validity has to be adjudged in the light of what has been prescribed inter alia under clause (a) to (d) of Section 24(2)¹ .” There is no quarrel with such proposition of law.

¶76

On close scrutiny of the pleadings qua the materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any material to indicate that the Petitioner has not received the notice rather there is prima facie material which clearly indicate that the same has been served.

¶77

In the factual matrix of the case at hand, this Court is also not persuaded to hold that there is infraction of the clause (a) to (d) of Section 24(2)¹ of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964.

¶78

It is also apt to note that notwithstanding the motion of no-confidence to be moved which, the Petitioner is well aware, no grievance has been raised before any of the authorities that such notice has not been served on the Petitioner.

¶79

In the considered view of this Court, in the factual backdrop of the present case, reliance on paragraph-4.7 of the Larger Bench judgment has no

¶80

Page 8 of 10

¶81

application. Reliance on the said observation bereft of factual context, amounts to committing the classic fallacy of applying a judgment without regard to its facts.

¶82

In this context, this Court respectfully refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills⁴ .

¶83

“xxx xxx xxx

¶84

19.⁠ ⁠Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

¶85

xxx xxx xxx "

¶86

Taking into account the rival submissions and the materials taken on record and considering the

¶87

4 Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496

¶88

Page 9 of 10

¶89

recitals in the writ petition, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for interference of this court.

¶90

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands rejected.

¶91

Judge

¶92

Santoshi

¶93

Signature Not Verified

¶94

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 17-Feb-2026 19:34:24

¶95

Page 10 of 10

Sunita Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranju Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Guruprasad Patra Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Panulal Paramanik Vs State

Bijaya Kumar Rath Vs State

Urmila Jena Vs State of Orissa