Orissa High Court
Sukanti Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.746 of 2025
Sukanti Behera .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Ms. A. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 23.04.2025 01. 1. The notice inviting the meeting of no confidence against the
appellant issued by the Sub-Collector was challenged in the writ petition and the order disposing of the same is assailed in the instant appeal.
2. The counsel for the appellant vociferously submits that the complete mechanism is provided under Section 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 and, therefore, the action of the authority in calling a meeting is in blatant violation of the provisions contained therein. Several points were raised in the said Page 1 of 5 writ petition relating to the mandatory requirement of a requisition and/or resolution to be appended, but the writ petition was restricted on a solitary point whether the requisition addressed to the Collector is strictly in tune with the provisions contained under Section 24 of the said Act.
3. The single Bench after noticing the provisions contained in the aforesaid provision held that the requisition and the resolution must be addressed to a Sub-Divisional Officer and not to the Collector and the moment an infraction to the provision of law is noticed by the Court, there is no impediment in cancelling the said notice fixing the date, time and a place for holding the meeting to be quashed and set aside.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court ought not to have directed the fresh notice to be issued in terms of the provision of Section 24, but should have quashed the entire exercise having taken by the requisitionist. The counsel for the appellant submits that it is sine qua non under the aforesaid provision to hold a meeting on the basis of a requisition as well as the resolution to be taken and since there was no resolution taken, the very inception of the initiation is per se illegal. Page 2 of 5
5. We do not find that the single Bench has gone into the nuances of the aforesaid provisions, but the entire decision was hovering around the communication made to the Collector instead of a Sub-Divisional Officer as required under the provision of Section 24 of the said Act. Since the non-adherence of the provision was noticed at the stage of making communication to the authority and the consequential step having taken thereupon, the said communication as well as the steps taken thereupon was found to be in contravention to the said provision and directed the requisitionist to address the same to the Officer named in the said provision i.e., Section 24 of the said Act. The apprehension of the appellant that it forecloses the door in challenging the notice on the other ground is unacceptable for the simple reason that the Court has not gone into the aforesaid aspect and solely on the technicalities, quashed the notice and directed a fresh step to be taken from the stage it is found to be in contravention to the provision of the said statute. There is no fetter on the part of the Court to annul the proceeding from the stage at which the violation of the statutory provision is found and there was no justification in quashing the entire proceedings.
Page 3 of 5
6. Admittedly, the requisition is made by one third members of the Gram Panchayat which is one of the mandatory conditions under Section 24 of the said Act. Whether it should be addressed to a Sub-Divisional Officer or a Collector was an issue and, therefore, the moment the Court found that such communication was addressed to an authority not named in the said provision, there is no illegality and infirmity in declaring the action taken on the basis of such communication without touching upon the communication i.e., the requisition by one third members of the Gram Panchayat.
7. In course of the hearing, we are informed that in compliance of the direction passed by the single Bench in the impugned order, the requisition is made to a competent authority under the said Act and a date for convening a meeting is also fixed by such competent authority. According to the appellant, the said notice is a subject matter of challenge in an independent writ petition which is pending.
8. Since the notice issued on the basis of a communication made to the Collector was quashed by the single Bench without adverting to the other points so agitated, we do not find any fetter Page 4 of 5 on the part of the appellant to raise an issue other than the one which was raised in an earlier writ petition before the proper forum.
9. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order, the appeal stands disposed of. No order to costs.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA S.K. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Apr-2025 18:43:48 Page 5 of 5