Orissa High Court
Ugresan Kisan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 11 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.11395 of 2025
Ugresan Kisan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA for O.P. Nos.1 to 5
Mr. A.K. Mahana, Advocate for O.P. No.6
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:24.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.02.2026
1.Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the opposite parties and the show cause issued in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against him being the Sarpanch of Kendrikela GP under Bonaigarh Block in the district of Sundargarh as at Annexure-6 with respect to the enquiry report dated 19th February, 2025 and the impugned order dated 11th April, 2025 vide Annexure-7 and for a direction to hold an impartial enquiry vis-à-vis absence of the Ward Members of the GP duly communicated to opposite party No.4 by letters dated 5 th October 2024 and 2nd November, 2024 at Annexure-2 series and to take appropriate action in accordance with law but Page 1 of 15 within a reasonable period of time as stipulated by this Court on the grounds stated.
2. According to the pleading on record, the petitioner and fourteen other Ward Members were elected to the GP. The first Annual General Meeting of the GP was held on 11th March, 2022. It is pleaded that although initially the Ward Members attended the monthly meetings of the GP, however, their attendance fell short during the first part of the year 2023 and thereafter, from July, 2023, inasmuch as, not more than three Ward Members attended the monthly meetings although notices were issued and served on them through e-Panchayat Sabha etc. For them having continuously failed to remain present, it affected the decision of the GP and resulted in stagnation of the developmental works of the Panchayat and in that connection, it is also pleaded that opposite party No.4 was approached alleging such conduct of the Naib Sarpanch and other members at the monthly meetings with intimation to him by a letter dated 5th October, 2024 and thereafter, on 2nd November, 2024, copies of which are at Annexure-2 series and also requested to remove the Ward Members from the GP for their continued default in attending the sittings and in that connection, even a meeting was conducted in relation to the complaints received. It is further pleaded that the Ward Members, in the meantime, approached opposite party No.3 for a no confidence motion against the petitioner but pursuant to the complaints from him about their actions in Page 2 of 15 not attending the monthly meeting, a detailed report was received and the same highlighted upon the fact that though the monthly meetings were conducted regularly with notices sent, the Ward Members did not attend the same, due to which, there was no quorum for the meetings. A copy of the report as at Annexure-5 series is referred to with the pleading that the absence of Ward Members during the monthly meetings for the period was established. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted to look into the complaints levelled against the petitioner and for the no confidence motion by the Ward Members. It has been alleged that the Committee instead of conducting such an enquiry and without taking into account the enquiry report of opposite party No.4 dated 21st December, 2024 held that notices were not served as per the provisions of Odisha Panchayat Rules, 2014 and the Rules of Business and also recommended that opposite party No.3 is competent to issue notice on no confidence motion as per the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Odisha Gram Panchayat Rules, 2014. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the enquiry report of the Committee as at Annexure-6, opposite party No.3 issued notice dated 11th April, 2025 vide Annexure-7 to convene the special meeting for the motion. The details of the exercise which were undertaken for the purpose of holding the meetings on monthly basis, as according to the petitioner, said to have been complied with but there was absence of Ward Members and without any action being followed, it is Page 3 of 15 alleged that the decision of opposite party No.3 to proceed with the vote of no confidence initiated against him is illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
3. Opposite party No.6 filed counter affidavit and it has been pleaded that he has been a signatory of the resolution of the no confidence motion initiated against the petitioner. It has been further pleaded that opposite party No.6 and others had been demanding no confidence motion against the petitioner but no action was taken despite several resolutions passed and in so far as the claim as to the absence of the Ward Members in attending the monthly meetings is concerned, it is a counterblast to the motion proposed. According to opposite party No.6, a representation dated 10th March, 2022 as per Annexure-A/6 was moved with the allegation of misdeeds committed by the petitioner and with the latter being indulged in illegalities in the execution of the works undertaken by the GP in violation of the guidelines of the projects and for the corrupt practice and when the request for enquiry and appropriate action had not yielded any result, the motion was proposed as a last resort. Referring to a representation as at Annexure-D/6 series, it is also pleaded that opposite party No.6 and other Ward Members brought to the notice of the authority concerned regarding creation of false bills and such other irregularities committed by the petitioner and even in not convening the meetings as per Rules of Business and requested to convey a special meeting for the motion Page 4 of 15 alleging that an audit was conducted by the District Audit Officer (LFA), Sundargarh, which revealed serious lapses on the part of the local authority and even there was no cooperation extended for the audit held duly proved from Annexure-E/6 and F/6 and at last, on 27th October, 2024, it was unanimously decided by 2/3rd members of the GP to pass a resolution and to approach opposite party No.3 to convene a special meeting for no confidence motion against him as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, whereafter, he only alleged disqualification of 11 Ward Members on the ground that they failed to attend the meeting referring to a resolution dated 25th May, 2023 of a meeting, in which, he himself was absent and it was presided over by opposite party No.6. With other allegations made, it has been pleaded by opposite party No.6 that the action of opposite party No.3 for no confidence motion is in accordance with the Act and that the Committee held an enquiry and correctly reached at the conclusion that the Ward Members had not been properly served with notices for the monthly meetings and rightly turned down the allegation of the petitioner.
4. Opposite party Nos.2 to 4 filed counter and pleaded therein that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable on facts and law and that apart, he is not entitled to any equitable relief and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded therein that the petitioner though challenged the enquiry report at Annexure-6 and the Page 5 of 15 decision vide Annexure-7 of opposite party No.2 appointing the Presiding Officer to regulate the proceedings of the special meeting proposed to be held on 28th April, 2025 but has not questioned the notice issued in consonance with Section 25(2)(c) of the Act. It is also pleaded that enquiry report dated 19th February, 2025 i.e. Annexure-6 was prepared by the Committee consisting of responsible officers of the district and found various irregularities committed by the petitioner as the Sarpanch of the GP and no such ground has been made out to question the same. The further pleading is that there has been a number of issues at the GP which could not be resolved amicably in the monthly meetings, however, most of the Ward Members demanded a no confidence motion against the petitioner. It is reiterated that notice dated 11th April, 2025 at Annexure- A/4 has not been challenged by the petitioner issued in terms of Section 24 of the Act, which was presided over by the Additional Tahasildar, Lahunipada, with an order vide Annexure-B/4 modifying the earlier decision dated 11th April, 2025 with such other facts pleaded therein. According to opposite party Nos.2 to 4, there has been no illegality committed with the enquiry held and report received as per Annexure-6 or the decision of opposite party No.3 with respect to the vote of no confidence and therefore, the plea of the petitioner is liable to be outrightly rejected, for being devoid of merit.
Page 6 of 155. A copy of the enquiry report is at Annexure-6. Such enquiry was held by a Committee comprising of District Panchayat Officer, Sundargarh and three others including opposite party No.4. It is made to reveal from Annexure-6 that a date for the enquiry was fixed to 22 nd January, 2025 but rescheduled to 19th February, 2025. The details of the decision of the Committee are to the effect that the petitioner demanded disqualification of the Ward Members under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act, but before any such disqualification was declared, 11 Ward Members sought for a no confidence motion against him with the claim that the meetings were not regularly held nor copies of any such meetings properly served on them as per the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014 and also the Rules of Business and the conclusion has been that the notices for the GP meetings were not served in accordance therewith and at last, recommended opposite party No.3 to go ahead with no confidence motion as per the Act. Upon receiving such a report from the Committee, opposite party No.3 issued notice vide Annexure-7 and fixed the special meeting for the no confidence motion with the date, venue and time of such meeting mentioned therein.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim of the Ward Members and the motion proposed with such other allegations made against him have not been duly considered and enquired into by the Committee ignoring the report of opposite party No.4 as at Annexure-5 series which proved Page 7 of 15 the fact that the monthly meetings were held regularly as per the schedule fixed with notices sent to all the Ward Members through e-Panchayat Sabha/Sandesh App and WhatsApp, but some of the Ward Members did not attend the meetings and hence, the quorum failed.
7. The claim of the petitioner is that the Ward Members, who are signatories of the resolution vis-à-vis vote of no confidence, are not eligible to participate therein having invited disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. Admittedly, there has been no disqualification declared with any such proceeding initiated under Section 26 of the Act. In anticipation of an action and disqualification of the Ward Members, the petitioner approached the authority concerned for enquiry alleging therein that they invite disqualification for having not attended the monthly meetings during the relevant period, but it has not been found favour with the Committee, which held enquiry, rather, it was followed by a recommendation to opposite party No.3 to proceed with the proposed motion. In view of the Committee's report at Annexure-6, opposite party No.3 proceeded to issue notice vide Annexure-7 and accordingly, a special meeting was directed to be convened on 28th April, 2025. The motion was, as a result, held on the date fixed and the result of the same was also published and duly notified on 25th May, 2025 by the District Office, Sundargarh.
8. The question is whether proper enquiry has been held vis- à-vis the complaint received from the petitioner with regard Page 8 of 15 to the absence of the Ward Members of the GP communicated through opposite party No.4 i.e. Annexure-2 series and the decision as per Annexure-7 with regard to the no confidence motion proposed?
9. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mahana, learned counsel for opposite party No.6.
10. According to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha implemented e- Panchayat Sabha, a digital platform and website for ensuring accountability, transparency, efficiency and reliability of various activities of the GPs in the State and it includes earmarking an agenda to record the minutes of the proceedings and also attendance at the GP meetings and as per Clause-3 of the Manual, the users of the applications include Sarpanch, Naib Sarpanch, Ward Members of the GP. It is contended that clause-6 of the Manual stipulates that functionalities of the system involve generation of the notices and issuance of such notices with agenda to the participants of the meetings. The submission is that apart from the above, clause-9 deals with issuance of alerts and notifications in the form of messages to the participants of the meetings and the concerned authorities and such notices are sent not only through Sandesh but also by SMS. In course of hearing, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to relevant clauses of the Brochure Manual Page 9 of 15 of e-Panchayat Sabha as at Annexure-8. The other paraphernalia observed in compliance of the instructions/circulars/notifications issued by the Government have been highlighted upon by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel in relation to issuance of notices to the members of the GPs through e-Panchayat Sabha platform and referred to Annexure-9 series. It is the submission of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel that without taking into account the notification in place, the Committee in charge of enquiry arbitrarily and illegally concluded that the notices were not served as per the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The contention is that a detailed enquiry was needed for the Committee with an exercise in that regard, but in utter disregard of the procedure usually followed before the monthly meetings are convened with the attendance of the members of the GP, it arrived at a decision that no notices have been served on the Ward Members for the meetings held on the dates fixed. The challenge to the enquiry report is on account of decision of the Ward Members to initiate a motion against him and according to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel, the decision and enquiry should have been held by the Committee considering all the materials before reaching at the conclusion that the notices had not been served on the Ward Members for the monthly meetings.
11. The recommendation as per Annexure-7 has been opposed by the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been claimed by opposite party No.6 that such an enquiry Page 10 of 15 demanded by the petitioner is only to pressurize him and other Ward Members, who are signatories to the resolution dated 27th October, 2024 vis-à-vis the proposed motion.
12. It is the settled law that a proceeding under Section 24 of the Act with regard to no confidence motion is an independent action and nothing to do with any such decision towards disqualification of members of the GP, which may be separately examined upon a complaint received. A disqualification proceeding is initiated under Section 26 of the Act and upon a subjective satisfaction reached at, with all such materials received, a member is disqualified and declared as such followed by a notification to that effect. According to Section 26(3) of the Act, a member of the GP, till such time, he or she is not declared disqualified, is considered a valid member and such disqualification takes into effect only upon a publication made in that regard. An action under Section 26 of the Act is an enquiry to be held by the Collector receiving evidence in favour of and against disqualification. Both the proceedings, as earlier stated, are distinct and mutually exclusive to each other. If any of the members of the GP declared disqualified and it has been accordingly published, he or she being a disqualified member, cannot obviously participate in the motion initiated thereafter. But, till such time, there is no such declaration in accordance with Section 26 of the Act, each and every member of the GP is eligible and entitled to be a part of an action for no confidence motion.
Page 11 of 1513. In the case at hand, no proceeding under Section 26 of the Act was ever initiated against the Ward Members, against whom, the petitioner alleged disqualification under Section 25(2)(b). Nonetheless, a Committee was constituted to enquire into the complaints received from the petitioner, but it has gone against him and resulted in a report i.e. Annexure-6 with a finding that notices with monthly meetings had not been duly served. A reference is made to the relevant clauses of the User Manual and the manner in which the proceedings are conducted and attendance of the Members of the GPs recorded. However, this Court finds that nothing on record to suggest that any such decision of the Committee is grossly erroneous. It has not been demonstrated by the petitioner and not even available on record to reach at a conclusion that such decision of the Committee, which is a fact-finding exercise, is incorrect. No doubt, the procedure has been prescribed with the application and system with an online platform available and in accordance therewith, notification and standing orders have been issued by the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha and the monthly meetings are to be conducted in terms thereof and in consonance with Orissa Panchayat Samiti (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1969, but it has not been demonstrated anywhere with materials placed on record to suggest that notices were served on the Ward Members at the relevant point of time. The Committee was constituted to look into the complaints of the petitioner and a prima facie view has Page 12 of 15 been expressed that notices had not been duly served on the members of the GP. In absence of any such proceeding initiated under Section 26 of the Act and that, the petitioner having failed to demonstrate that there has been service of the notices on the Ward Members, who, however, failed to turn up or did not participate and as a result, quorum could not result to discuss and deliberate upon the agenda fixed, the Court has no reason to believe that such decision at the end of the enquiry to be flawed.
14. Even though, notice as per Annexure-7 is under challenge, but according to the Court, opposite party No.3 was left with no option except to fix the date upon receiving the resolution and requisition for the motion. The manner in which the resolution was passed leading to the submission of the requisition by the signatories to the same including opposite party No.6 and the decision by opposite party No.3 has not been questioned by the petitioner. It is not alleged by the petitioner that any of the members of the GP was not a party to the motion or was not inclined to propose such motion, though, the notice of opposite party No.3 as per Annexure-7 has been challenged by him. According to the Court, opposite party No.3 did not have any other role to play except fixing the date for the special meeting to be held for the motion. If the complaint received from the petitioner failed to persuade the Committee to conclude that the notices had been served on the Ward Members, who, however, did not attend the monthly meetings of the GP, Page 13 of 15 what would have been the consequence except to proceed with the requisition received from them.
15. A detailed procedure is prescribed under Section 24 of the Act, wherein, upon receiving the requisition with a copy of the proposed resolution, the Sub-Collector shall have to issue notice to all the members of the GP annexing copies of the proposed resolution and requisition fixing a date for the special meeting to be convened with a margin of 15 days allowed. The said procedure has been followed by opposite party No.3, as it appears from Annexure-7. It is at the cost of repetition stated that there has been no challenge from the side of the petitioner to the resolution or for that matter, in receiving notice from opposite party No.3. The entire grievance is against the decision of the Committee and the report submitted as per Annexure-6. When the findings are not in favour of the petitioner and the Committee reached at the conclusion holding that the notices had not been served on the Ward Members in respect of monthly meetings held during the period under consideration, in absence of any such material on record to the contrary for the Court to take judicial notice of, it has to be concluded that there has been no error or any such illegality committed by opposite party No.3 in issuing the notice vide Annexure-7 for the motion. That apart, it has been reiterated umpteen times that disqualification of a member of a GP commences only upon the publication as per Section 26(3) of the Act and not from any anterior date, when the cause of action to question the Page 14 of 15 membership arises. In view of the discussion as aforesaid, the irresistible conclusion is that decision of opposite party No.3 to proceed with the requisition and fixing up the date for the proposed motion suffers from no infirmity.
16. Accordingly, it ordered.
17. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 17-Feb-2026 11:12:26 Page 15 of 15