Orissa High Court
Lata Kumbhar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.29320 of 2025
Lata Kumbhar .... Petitioner
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate for O.P.No.6
Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate for O.P.No.5
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
19.11.2025 Order No.
05. 1. Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State besides Mr. Swain, learned counsel for opposite party No.5.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 11th June, 2025 as at Annexure-1 issued by opposite party No.2 in connection with a no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 30th June, 2025 on the grounds stated therein.
3. This Court by order dated 6th November, 2025 had directed the State to file reply affidavit which has not been complied with. But, considering the fact that only a point of law involved, such filing of the counter by the State is hereby dispensed with.
Page 1 of 54. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the no confidence motion is vitiated since opposite party No.2 was disqualified in terms of Section 25 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for having not attended three consecutive meetings. It is further submitted that such disqualification was recommended at the behest of the G.P., hence, opposite party No.3 could not have been allowed to participate in the motion held on the date fixed. The contention is that the very recommendation should be treated as the date, on which, opposite party No.3 invited the disqualification, hence, allowing him to participate in the vote of no confidence was illegal and therefore, the entire exercise with the issuance of the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 is vitiated.
5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
6. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 submits that the signature of the said opposite party was managed and fraud has been played by the requisitionists demanding no confidence motion against the petitioner, the fact, which has not been taken judicial notice of by opposite party No.2, hence, the motion consequent upon the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 is illegal.
7. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 submits that opposite party No.3 was disqualified under Section 25 of the Act with a proceeding initiated under Section 26 Page 2 of 6 thereof by the orders of opposite party No.4 and it was published on 9th October, 2025 which is after the date of the motion held and therefore, the result of such motion should be declared, which has been withheld in view of the Court's interim order dated 16th October, 2025 in I.A. No. 18398 of 2025.
8. In so far as the contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is to the effect that the recommendation having been made vis-à-vis disqualification of opposite party No.3, such disqualification, he invites forthwith and hence could not have been a party to the vote of no confidence motion held on 30th June, 2025. It is submitted that opposite party No.3 could not have been permitted as a requisitionist to move motion and any such decision by opposite party No.2 with the issuance of impugned notice at Annexure-1 as a result is illegal. According to Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite party No.6, the disqualification is invited by a member of the G.P. in terms of Section 26(3) of the Act. The further submission is that such disqualification may be recommended by the G.P. against a member of the G.P. in terms of Section 25(2) of the Act. In view of the fact that the disqualification was published on 9th October, 2025, according to Mr. Nanda, learned counsel even though it was followed by Annexure-7, a decision under Section 26 thereof, the same is not to invalidate the action and exercise initiated by opposite party No.2.
Page 3 of 69. Section 25(2) of the Act deals with the provision regarding disqualification of a Sarpanch or any other member of a G.P. and shall cease to be a member upon such disqualification in the manner prescribed therein. In the instant case, it is claimed by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner that such a requisition demanding disqualification of opposite party No.6 was by the G.P. Irrespective of any such requisition received alleging disqualification on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 25 of the Act, the decision under Section 26 of the Act having been arrived after the no confidence motion held on the date fixed, the Court is of the humble view that opposite party No.3 was a valid member as on the date of such motion and on such ground, the entire exercise cannot be challenged by the petitioner. The Court is of the conclusion as above in view of Section 26(3) of the Act which stipulates that in case of any such disqualification, the Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch or any such other member of the G.P., whosoever, he shall be deemed to have vacated the office from the date of such publication and till the publication is released, shall be entitled to act, as if there is no disqualification.
10. In support of the contention advanced, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 cited a decision in Ananda Pradhan Vrs. Collector, Khurda & others 2011(1) OLR-359. In the decision (supra), it has been held that disqualification of a Ward Member or any other member of the G.P. and such decision shall be given effect to only after its publication and not from any anterior date, hence, the Court's Page 4 of 6 present view is fortified. On the same issue, one more decision is referred to in Namitarani Pradhan Vrs. State of Orissa & others 2011(Supp.-1) OLR-446. Considering the above case laws, the Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.3 since was a valid member as on the date of the motion and declared disqualified thereafter, it cannot be a ground to challenge the motion as such disqualification is having prospective effect. Furthermore, requisition for disqualification by the Sarpanch of the G.P. and the date of such requisition cannot be treated at the date of disqualification as it has been contended by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner hence, such contention is liable to be rejected. Likewise, the contention of opposite party No.5 is not acceptable for the reason that the Court is not inclined to enter into a disputed question of fact as it has been alleged that the signature on the requisition was manipulated. In fact, before the motion, in normal course of things, opposite party No.2 must have carried out the verification of all the members, who are the requisitionists. Having said that and in view of the discussions made hereinabove with the conclusion that opposite party No.3 having been disqualified after the motion and that apart, even without him, there is no quorum less than the number required for the requisition, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 and the decision of opposite party No.2 as a result.
11. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Page 5 of 612. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order dated 16th October, 2025 in I.A. No. 18398 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result.
13. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 21-Nov-2025 12:55:28 Page 6 of 6