Orissa High Court
Menaka Kalo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27086 of 2024
Menaka Kalo .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K, Bose, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
Mr. K. C. Sahu, Advocate(Intervener)
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:11.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the impugned notice dated 17th October, 2024 as at Annexure-3 issued by opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against her on the grounds inter alia that the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Jarangloi GP and opposite party No.3 issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 for the vote of no confidence proposed against her. It is pleaded on record that ever since elected as the Sarpanch of the GP, the petitioner has been successfully discharging duty after assumption of the charge consequent Page 1 of 15 upon issuance of notification dated 2nd March, 2022 at Annexure-2. The further pleading is that the GP in question under Bargaon Panchayat in District of Sundargarh consists of 13 Wards and the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch with a huge margin of vote polled and while continuing as such, she received Annexure-3 from opposite party No.3 regarding the special meeting to be held on 5th November, 2024 for considering the no confidence motion against her. It is the claim of the petitioner that the notice in question was received by her indicating therein about a copy of the requisition to have been enclosed but no such enclosure was found and that apart, no official seal was affixed to the same. It is alleged that the proposed motion is an outcome of political vengeance and collective conspiracy of some of the Ward Members. The further claim is that vote of no confidence may be initiated against a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, as the case may be, in accordance with Section 24 of the Act which stipulates that such a motion may be moved by majority of the members not less than 1/3rd of the total membership having rights to vote followed by a requisition and the same is a statutory mandate and in the case at hand, it has not taken place as per law, hence, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 is invalid. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not receive a copy of the resolution with the notice. It is pleaded that the minutes of the meeting dated 5th November, 2024 cannot be said as the proposed resolution for the purpose of vote of no confidence. The further claim is that the petitioner learnt about the requisition not to have been Page 2 of 15 drawn at the office of the GP signed by the PEO and sent to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.5 and that apart, under the threat of the Naib Sarpanch, the Ward Members put their signatures on the resolution and besides that, opposite party No.3 without any enquiry conducted on the allegations levelled against her issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3, hence, such an exercise and action is per se illegal. Narrating other facts pleaded by the petitioner regarding the duties and functions discharged by her as the Sarpanch of the GP with all sincerity and diligence, the impugned action for the no confidence motion against her has been questioned stating further that an elected representative is not to be unseated from the office in such manner and in case, the no confidence motion is allowed to be held, it would affect the democratic functions of the GP, hence, deserves to nipped at the bud.
3. On the contrary, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 with a counter filed pleaded that there is no violation of any of the statutory provisions of the Act and in particular, Section 24 (2)(c) and (d) thereof. Though, it is alleged that the proposed resolution and requisition not to have been sent to the petitioner, it is pleaded that such claim of the petitioner is totally a falsehood, as the copies of the same were dispatched by Post and it was also accomplished through personal service with an intimation about the no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 5th November, 2024 and such motion was finally held on the date fixed, but its result has not been published in view of the Court's order in I.A. Page 3 of 15 No.14627 of 2024 and while claiming so, reference has been made to Annexures-A/3 to F/3. It is also pleaded that apart from the impugned notice served on the petitioner and other Ward Members, it was affixed on the notice board of the Samiti seven days prior to the date fixed for the motion complying Section 24(2)(d) of the Act and hence, all the formalities have been observed in accordance with law, thus, there is no infirmity in the notice under challenge and that apart, the requisition was signed by not less than 1/3rd members of the GP as per Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and upon receiving the same, opposite party No.3 rightly exercised the jurisdiction and issued such notice after proper verification. A copy of resolution is at Annexure-A/3 and it was received by opposite party No.3 and as pleaded on record, the same was sent along with the requisition, while issuing the notice, only after necessary verification was carried out on 9th October, 2024 vide Annexure-B/3. In fact, it is pleaded that opposite party No.3 initiated the process after authentication of the signatures of the Ward Members and it was accomplished with the assistance of opposite party No.5 and while stating so, Annexures-B/3 and C/3 are pressed into service. With such other facts pleaded on record, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 claim that the impugned notice as per Annexure-3 has been issued sent along with the proposed resolution and requisition and duly received by the petitioner well before the vote of no confidence held on 5th November, 2024 and therefore, no illegality has been committed.
Page 4 of 154. By way of a rejoinder affidavit to the counter of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner has pleaded that the action initiated against her is in gross violation of Section 24 of the Act, all the more when, the Naib Sarpanch and some of the Ward Members have failed to attend three consecutive meetings convened by the GP, which were either unsuccessful or adjourned due to want of quorum and as such, all of them stand disqualified to continue as the members of the GP in view of the Section 25(2)(b) of the Act with the further claim that the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned by letter dated 2nd December, 2024 at Annexure-7 series stating therein the details with the names of the Ward Members, who were absent in successive meetings of the GP but was of no avail. It is also pleaded that opposite party No.5 could not have been engaged for authentication of the signatures of the Ward Members found in the resolution as the same is against law and that apart, the resolution did not reveal the details of the allegation of corruption and misappropriation, hence, when such resolution by itself being not lawful, it could not have been acted upon for the vote of no confidence. It is reiterated that a copy of the resolution dated 13th September, 2024 was never received by the petitioner having not been sent along with the notice. It is also alleged that the members of Ward Nos.1 and 5 of the GP are having more than two children and therefore, invite immediate disqualification, hence, not eligible to continue and though, it was duly intimated with affidavits filed and other materials produced as per Page 5 of 15 Annexures-11 to 14 but no action was taken thereon and in such view of the matter, all of them having participated and are signatories to the resolution inviting disqualification forthwith, the no confidence motion with issuance of the notice under Annexure-3 is out rightly illegal and as a corollary, the entire exercise for the motion.
5. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 13 besides Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State. None appears for opposite party Nos.14 to 18.
6. Gone through the additional rejoinder affidavit dated 11th July, 2025 filed by the petitioner to the counter of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
7. In course of hearing, a decision of this Court in Damayanti Hansda Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.20054 of 2019 dated 6th May, 2020 is cited by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 13 referred to the following decisions, such as, Jayaram Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.26726 of 2024 dated 19th February, 2025; Karunakar Seth Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.29340 of 2024 dated 17th March, 2025; and Narendra Majhi Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.27500 of 2024 dated 21st April, 2025 to contend that due to process has been followed as per the Act.
Page 6 of 158. From Annexure-3, it is made to reveal that opposite party No.3 upon receiving the requisition issued the impugned notice dated 17th October, 2024 with intimation to all concerned about the special meeting to be held on 5 th November, 2024 at 11 A.M. at the venue mentioned therein. Such notice is said to have been received by the petitioner but alleging the copies of the proposed resolution and requisition not being sent along with it. The petitioner further claims that she received such notice on 23rd October, 2024. As per the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, notice for the no confidence motion was published in the office notice board of the GP, the fact, which has not been disputed by the petitioner, however, the grievance is that the copies of the resolution and also the requisition were not received, which means, according to her, she was served with a notice only. It is hard to believe that opposite party No.3 failed to issue notice annexing the copies of the resolution and requisition when it was issued to all concerned after having received the requisition. No malafide is attributed to opposite party No.3 either. As it is made to reveal from the counter of the State, the notice was sent to the petitioner and other members of the GP simultaneously and it was also affixed in the office notice board of the GP duly proved by Annexures-D/3 in compliance of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act and before that, necessary verification was carried out with respect to the resolution (Annexure-A/3) by the orders of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-B/3 and accomplished with intimation received as per Annexure-C/3.
Page 7 of 159. According to Section 24(1) of the Act, when a resolution gets through by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total membership of the GP due to want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, as the case may be, the same is to be immediately forwarded to the Collector, whereafter, it is published in his notice board and with effect from the date of such publication, the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, whosoever, shall be deemed to have vacated the office. The manner, in which, such meeting is to be held with the motion initiated is envisaged in sub-section (2) thereof, wherein, as per clause (c), the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of the requisition shall fix the date, hour and place of the special meeting and to issue notice to all the members holding the office by that time with copies of requisition and proposed resolution at least 15 days before the date of fixed. On a reading of Section 24 of the Act, it is made clear that the requisition on being received by the Sub-Divisional officer, 15 days' notice is mandatory with the intimation to all the members of the GP about the meeting to be held for the vote of no confidence. Furthermore, Section 24(2)(d) of the Act stipulates that the aforesaid notice shall be sent under Certificate of Posting and a copy of thereof to be published at least 7 days prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice board of the Samiti.
10. Law is well settled that the manner and modes of service of notice and receipt of the same by Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the vote of no confidence is proposed cannot be challenged unless there is any prejudice Page 8 of 15 shown to have been caused. Such service of notice shall also be by Post and published in the notice board of the Samiti and it shall have to be at least seven days prior to the date fixed for the meeting. The provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act regarding service of notice and the manner in which, it has to be accomplished is a clear indication of the fact that it shall have to be served on the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch with proper intimation about the motion to take place. In fact, clause(e) of sub section (2) of Section 24 of the Act stipulates that the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that the notice has not been received by any member. It does mean that reasonable time should be allowed for each of the members of the GP to respond to the motion including the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the action is initiated but not to be frustrated by any such claim as above. The statutory notice period is mandatory and the same cannot be dispensed with, whereas, the other formalities towards its service in the manner specified is directory in nature.
11. In the case at hand, there has been 15 days notice issued in terms of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. The notice is dated 17th October, 2024, whereas, the special meeting was fixed to be held on 5th November, 2024 and as such, there has been clear 15 days allowed for such meeting to be convened for the purpose of the vote of no confidence. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the notice was received on 23rd October, 2024 falling short of the statutory period. According to the Court, any such notice with a margin period Page 9 of 15 below 15 days is not to defeat the motion unless prejudice is clearly demonstrated denying reasonable time to respond. No such case is made out by the petitioner to satisfy the Court that receiving notice on 23rd October, 2024 really inconvenienced or severely prejudiced her in the participation for the motion and therefore, such a ground challenging the action cannot be accepted. The principal ground is that the copies of the resolution and requisition have not been received by the petitioner. From the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, it is revealed that such notice was issued to all the members and it was sent with the resolution and requisition. The quorum necessary for the resolution to initiate the motion against the petitioner is evident from Annexure-A/3. From the counter, it is also made to understand that the requisition dated 30th September, 2024 was received by opposite party No.3 and on the very same day, it was sent for verification of the signatures of the Ward Members found therein vide Annexure-B/3. The verification has been held by the orders of opposite party No.3 and it was by opposite party No.5 further revealed from Annexure-C/3. The manner, in which, the verification of the signatures in the requisition to be held is not specifically dealt with anywhere in the Act and therefore, utilizing the services of opposite party No.5, for any such purpose, as questioned by the petitioner, cannot be regarded as illegal and therefore, it has to be concluded by the Court that the verification has been held by opposite party No.3 in accordance with law.
Page 10 of 1512. Furthermore, as per the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, there has been a notice issued vide Annexure-F/3 complying Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. In such view of the matter, when due procedure has been followed by opposite party No.3 upon receiving the requisition, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the motion on any such ground including non-receipt of the copies of the resolution and requisition as that plea is considered to be unbelievable. By no stretch of imagination, in view of exercise undertaken by opposite party No.3 with all details disclosed and discussed herein before, it cannot be said that the notice was not accompanied with resolution and requisition. A claim of the petitioner alleging the resolution and requisition not to have been sent and received by her is not credible enough to make one believe any kind of lapses on the part of opposite part No.3. It is not denied that the petitioner had not received any notice. The only complaint is that though the notice was received by the petitioner but it was without the resolution and requisition annexed to it, which, as earlier concluded, cannot be comprehended.
13. As regards the claim of disqualification of some of the Ward Members with reference to the affidavits filed and received on record, the Court is of the view that the concerned Ward Members were valid members of the GP since as on the date of the special meeting held on 5th November, 2024, no any disqualification was attached to them. An action under Section 26 of the Act shall have to be initiated alleging disqualification of any of the Ward Page 11 of 15 Members on such grounds stipulated in Section 25 thereof and if there is disqualification duly notified, such members cannot participate in the special meeting called for the vote of no confidence. Till such time, a member of the GP is declared disqualified, he or she shall remain a valid member eligible to participate in the special meeting having the rights to vote for or against the motion. With any such allegation of disqualification for having more than two children by the cut- off date vis-à-vis the Ward Members named by the petitioner in view of Section 25((2)(b) of the Act, unless, resulted in their disqualification with the proceedings initiated under Section 26 of the Act, each of them is having the rights to cast vote during the motion. Mere allegation of disqualification at any time after the resolution or even before without being declared so cannot invalidate one's membership, hence, a valid member for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act.
14. Regarding the performance of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that such a claim must have been a subject of debate and discussion during the special meeting held on 5th November, 2024. If the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch loses the confidence among the members of the GP and a motion is proposed with a requisition issued for the same, the intent and purpose of the special meeting convened is to deliberate upon, whether, the motion to be cleared or otherwise. If ultimately upon a satisfaction reached at, the members of the GP may decline and oppose the motion upon considering the response of the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. It all depends on Page 12 of 15 the discussions held during such meeting. Since the required number of Ward Members of the GP passed the resolution and submitted the requisition, the motion for a discussion with a special meeting held cannot be opposed with a claim of good performance by the petitioner in discharging duties and functions as the Sarpanch. The Act is silent about any kind of enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the performance of the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch after receiving requisition with any such powers to deny the special meeting to be held for a motion demanded. As a necessary corollary, it has to be held that once a resolution is received with the signatures therein with a 2/3rd majority of its members, the Sub-Divisional Officer is left with no option except to fix the special meeting for the motion. Thus, it has to be concluded that the motion could not have been opposed and objected by claiming good performance of the petitioner, as the credibility to hold the office of Sarpanch depends on the confidence reposed on her by the Ward Members of GP.
15. To sum up, non-receipt of resolution and requisition with the notice by the petitioner is beyond one's comprehension when the record proved it otherwise with the necessary exercise being undertaken by opposite party No.3. Nothing is really demonstrated by the petitioner to satisfy that such lapses had taken place, when it is contradicted by evidence suggestive of the fact that notice with the proposed resolution and requisition accompanied the notices issued to all concerned. In any case, the petitioner learnt about the special meeting receiving the notice on 23rd October, 2024 Page 13 of 15 well before the date fixed for the motion and hence, cannot be said to have been prejudiced. The notice did not carry official seal is too trivial an objection opposing the action and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of it, even if, the same is factually correct. A claim of political vengeance or conspiracy as alleged by the petitioner against the Ward Members responsible for the motion is nothing to do with the role of opposite party No.3, who is simply to exercise powers conferred under the Act. The law does not envisage any such role for a Sub-Collector upon receiving a call for the motion to conduct enquiry on any such grievance of a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the motion is proposed. Furthermore, the substance of the resolution and requisition is more important than anything else and therefore, too much emphasis not to be given on formats. What is really significant is to realize and understand the intention behind the action. The Court would rather conclude that substantial compliance of law is needed without excessive indulgence to the formats or nomenclature. Of course, the conditions necessary before motion to be held in the manner prescribed in Sections 24(2)(c) &(d) of the Act shall have to be fulfilled to the hilt ensuring that the notice for the motion is issued with a 15 days margin. But, defect in service of notice, as stated before, cannot in any manner invalidate the exercise. That apart, receiving notice with less days left for the meeting to take place is also not to defeat the motion, as it is claimed by the petitioner that he had only 13 days to respond, which, according to the Court, not to affect Page 14 of 15 the exercise, all the more when, no prejudice is demonstrated. That apart, the claim of threat being administered to some of the Ward Members is too naïve for anyone to believe, when all are elected representatives and could have approached the local Administration with complaints for any such mischief by the Naib Sarpanch, who is alleged to be instrumental for the motion. It is to restate that the plea of political vengeance cannot stand on the way of the motion and it was for opposite party No.3 to immediately respond upon receiving the requisition. In fact, starting from receiving of the requisition with issuance of notice even handed over to the petitioner as revealed from Annexure-F clearly and conspicuously suggests that all such procedure was followed before fixing the date for the motion and hence, no fault can be found claiming that the whole of the exercise stood vitiated.
16. Hence, it is ordered.
17. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 16-Oct-2025 11:51:20 Page 15 of 15