Orissa High Court
Prahallad Dalei vs State Of Odisha And Others on 5 August, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 ORISSA 179, (2015) 119 CUT LT 720 (2014) 2 ORISSA LR 574, (2014) 2 ORISSA LR 574
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK.
W.A No. 227 of 2014
Arising from order dated 20.06.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.11062 of
2014
----------
Prahallad Dalei ... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and others ... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s Sarat Ch. Mishra and
A.K.Mishra-3.
For Respondents : Mr. B.P. Pradhan,
Additional Government Advocate.
----------
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. PRADIP MOHANTY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 07.07.2014 Date of Judgment: 05.08.2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biswanath Rath, J.: By filing the writ appeal the appellant has assailed the dismissal order dated 20.06.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11062 of 2014. The appellant has preferred to file this appeal seeking the following relief(s):-
"It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the appeal, call for the records and after hearing the 2 parties set-aside the dismissal order of the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench of this Hon'ble High Court disposed of on dtd.20.06.2014 in W.P.(C) No.1106/2014 filled against the illegal requisition of vote of no confidence against the Sarapanch, Bolagarh G.P. under Bolagarh Block under Khurda District as Annexure-2.
And, to quash the notice No.-03(19) dtd.11.06.2014 as at annexure-3 issued to convene requisition meeting for note of no confidence against the appellant."
2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that Sarapanch, Bolagarh Grama Panchayat under Bolagarh Block in Khurda district for last two years was managing the affairs of Grama Panchayat smoothly. While continuing as such, the present respondent no.3, i.e., the opposite party no.3 in the writ petition in his notice no.03(19) dated 11.06.2014 enclosed a resolution passed by nine(9) ward-members for the decision of the Panchayat in their meeting scheduled to be held on 27.06.2014 at 11.00 A.M. in the Bolagarh Grama Panchayat Office. The allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the opposite party no.3 to the writ petition, i.e., present respondent no.3, has not followed the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short the 'Act'). The notice issued by opposite party no.3, is incomplete being violative of Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 and, therefore, sought for quashing of the same. The notice of opposite party no.3-respondent no.3 referred to is appearing at Annexure-2 of the writ petition and at Annexure-3 of the writ appeal. The aforesaid writ petition was heard 3 on 20.06.2014 and was dismissed on the same day at the admission stage holding as follows :-
"The petitioner has moved this Court to restrain the opposite parties from proceeding in the matter of 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner on the ground of contravention of Section 24(2) (a) and (c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. Perusal of Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 shows that the provisions of the aforesaid section has been complied with and it has been mentioned in the notice vide Annexure-2.
In view of such fact, I do not find any justification to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-C.R. Dash, J."
3. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2014, the appellant has filed the writ appeal. The appellant while quoting relevant provisions of the Act, sought for quashing of the order of learned Single Judge essentially on the following grounds:-
1. The Sub-collector, Khurda has not adopted the due procedure as contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act while issuing the notice for conduct of 'no confidence motion'.
2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without application of judicial mind and has failed to appreciate the 4 submissions made by the appellant regarding resolution proposed to be moved in the meeting stipulated in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act on the ground that this being a legislative requirement no procedural laches can be acceptable.
4. Heard the parties during the course of the hearing on the question of admission of the writ appeal, the parties placed the citations that they relied on. The petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Muktamanjari Sahoo v. State of Orissa & others; 2010(II) OLR-473 and Smt. Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa and others; A.I.R. 2001 Orissa 67. Similarly, the State respondents relied on the decisions in the case of Cyril E. Fernandes v. Sr. Maria Lydia & others; A.I.R. 1977 S.C., 2145, Sarat Padhy v. State of Orissa; 1988 (I) OLR-76 and Bhagabat Sahoo v. Collector, Angul; 2005(Suppl.) OLR-1106.
5. Before discussing on the decisions referred to by the parties, it is necessary to look into the provisions relied on by the parties. The Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 at Section 24(2)(a) and (c) reads as follows :-
"24.
(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 :
(a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third 5 of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting;
xx xx xx xx
(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 of such notice along with a copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed."
6. The submission of the appellant is that while issuing a notice of 'no confidence motion' following provisions under Section 24(2)(a) of the Act no meeting can be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Grama Pachayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting. Similarly, under Section 24(2) (c) the requirement of the statute is that a 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 of such notice along with a copy of the requisition and copy of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed.
7. The appellant, even though assails the action of the Sub-Collector for not following the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(h) but, we feel that the same has no relevance to the present 6 case. Before proceeding to deal with the validity of the notice under Annexure-3, it is necessary to look into the contents in Annexure-3. Annexure-3, i.e., the notice no.03 dated 11.06.2014 clearly speaks that while fixing the date and time of the meeting, the Sub-collector, Khurda has only enclosed the resolution adopted by the Panchayat on 28.05.2014. If the resolution dated 28.05.2014 is looked into, the said resolution in item no.5 resolved to intimate Sub-Collector, Khurda to bring a 'no confidence motion' against the Sarapanch. Following the above resolution dated 28.05.2014, the Panchayat also by letter dated 30.05.2014 intimated the Sub-Collector, Khurda that they have already resolved to bring a 'no confidence motion' against the Saranpach.
8. From the above, it is amply clear that the members of the Panchayat have resolved to move the 'no confidence motion' against the Sarapanch by their meeting dated 28.05.2014 and the Sub- collector, Khurda in his notice dated 11.06.2014 issued under Section 24 of the Act accompanied the resolution of the members of the Panchayat dated 28.05.2014. The mandate of the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) are two fold. As per Section 24(2)(a), the requirement is that no meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by one-third of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved and the second requirement is that 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 of such notice along with a copy of the requisition and 7 of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed.
9. The documents filed along with writ petition as well as the writ appeal clearly establish that the meeting was convened on 28.05.2014 in which the members of the Grama Panchayat proposed / decided to bring 'no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch and on 30.05.2014 the members of the Grama Panchayat submitted a requisition to the Sub Divisional Officer for bringing a 'no confidence motion' against the Sarpanch, which was sent along with a copy of the resolution dated 28.05.2014 proposed to be moved. But, the Sub- Collector upon receipt of the proposed resolution fixed the date, hour and place of the meeting by issuing a notice dated 11.06.2014 and while fixing the date, hour and place of such meeting giving notice to all the members had only accompanied the resolution of the members of the Grama Panchayat dated 28.05.2014 as clearly reflected in the documents vide Annexure-3 to the writ appeal.
10. We have heard the respective parties and gone through the materials produced before us as well as the provisions relied on by the parties. Provision of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act makes it amply clear that though the Sub-collector, Khurda was required under the statute to issue notice of 'no confidence motion' accompanying therein a copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution, we find the notice of 'no confidence motion' did not accompany the requisition. Thus notice vide Annexure-3 also suffers being not in consonance with the statutory requirement vide Section 24(2)(c) of the Act.
811. In view of the above strong factual position, this Court does not feel it necessary to deal with the citations relied upon at the Bar, which are irrelevant for the purpose.
12. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice vide Annexure-3 to the writ appeal as well as Annexure-2 to the writ petition is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and
(c) of the Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, as it did not contain the copy of the requisition, which is a mandatory requirement. As such, the notice as appearing at Annexure-3 is held to be invalid in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge impugned at Annexure-1, being contrary to the materials available on record as well as the statutory provision vide Section 24(2)(c) of Act is not sustainable in the eye of law, which we set-aside accordingly.
The writ appeal is thus allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.
...........................
Biswanath Rath, J.
Pradip Mohanty, ACJ.: I agree.
................................
Pradip Mohanty, ACJ.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 5th day of August, 2014/Dutta.