Orissa High Court
Pratima Patra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 17 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11182 of 2025
Pratima Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Dalai, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.6 to 15
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
17.12.2025 Order No.
12. 1. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 15 and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned notice dated 7th April, 2025 as at Annexure-3 issued by opposite party No.4 in connection with a no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 2nd May, 2025 on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire exercise is vitiated since no rules of procedure is in place as is required in terms of Section 24(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The submission is that conduct of business dealing with meeting in terms of Section 24(1) of the Act requires a Page 1 of 8 procedure, which is not prescribed and therefore, the exercise for the motion is to fall flat. It is further submitted that some of the Ward Members stand disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the requisition received by opposite party No.4 is not a valid one, hence, it could not have been acted upon for the no confidence motion. Furthermore, opposite party No.4 could not have given effect to the result of the motion in view of the Court's interim order dated 29 th April, 2025 in I.A. No.6904 of 2025. The submission is that the impugned action, as a result, violates Article 14 and also Article 243-G of the Constitution of India besides for not abiding to the principles of natural justice. The contention is that in absence of a procedure prescribed by the Government, the one adopted by opposite party No.4 is illegal and in support of such plea, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel cited a case law in Taylor Vrs. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426. The submission is that law prescribes a particular procedure to be followed, one has to follow the same that way only. Relying upon another decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, it is contended that the action initiated under Section 24(1) of the Act is in violation of sub-section (2) thereof and therefore, any such motion held on the date fixed is nonest in the eye of law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State would submit that Section 24(2) of the Act stipulates that in the convening of the meeting under sub section(1) and conduct of business as such, the State Government may prescribe and in absence of the same, the usual procedure followed for other Page 2 of 8 meetings is to be adhered to and therefore, it cannot said that opposite party No.4 in any way committed illegality. The submission is that upon receiving the requisition, opposite party No.4 in normal course of things by following the procedure prescribed for other meetings fixed the date for the motion and accordingly, the provisions of sub-section (2) have been complied with and therefore, the plea of the petitioner and submission of Mr. Dalei, learned counsel in that regard is entirely misconceived. The further submission is that even though, there has been disqualification proceedings, it is not to stand as a bar, for the reason that all such members are the valid members on the date the resolution and requisition submitted and for that, a reference under Section 26(3) of the Act is made. The contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA is that a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch or any of the member of the Gram Panchayat, if has been disqualified by a decision as per and in terms of Section 26 thereof, he shall be deemed to have vacated the office and till the date of such publication, the member shall be entitled to act as if there was no disqualification attached.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties would submit and support the contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA and contend that there has been no disqualification declared in respect of the Ward Members, who participated in the motion. The contention is that till such time, any such disqualification arrived, each and every member is a valid member of the G.P. to participate in the motion.
Page 3 of 86. In course of hearing, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a point that if any of the grounds of Section 25 of the Act towards disqualification is alleged, from the date of such disqualification, a member of the G.P. is ineligible to participate in the motion and in reply to the same, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State and also Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties would submit that such disqualification needs an inquiry in terms of Section 26 of the Act and therefore, a member cannot be declared disqualified without any such procedure being exhausted. In support of such contention, Mr. Ray, learned AGA cited the following decisions, such as, Ananda Pradhan Vrs. Collector, Khurda and others AIR 2011 Orissa 130 and Namitarani Pradhan and others Vrs. State and others 2010 I ILR Cuttack 530 to contend that each and every member is eligible to participate in the motion unless duly declared disqualified. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties cited an order of this Court dated 19th November, 2025 in W.P.(C) No.9320 of 2025 to buttress the argument that the disqualification is only upon an exercise held in terms of Section 26 of the Act.
7. So far as Section 24(2) of the Act is concerned, a meeting to the motion is to be held in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by the Government, subject, however, to the other provisions enumerated therein. Admittedly, there is no rule in place and at no point of time, the vires of sub-section (1) has been questioned. In absence of any such rules prescribed by the Government, the Court is of the Page 4 of 8 humble view that the exercise with regard to the motion cannot be challenged. If a requisition is received in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, the authority concerned is to proceed accordingly and to follow a procedure stipulated therein. In absence of any such rules, it cannot be claimed that a requisition received from the Ward Members or any such members of the G.P. for a no confidence motion, the same cannot be acted upon by the Sub-Collector. The State Government has the prerogative to prescribe rules but in absence thereof, to claim that sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act is not to be given effect to, when there is a procedure prescribed with other provisions stipulated therein, the contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner on any such ground is unacceptable, hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
8. In so far as Section 25(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, according to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Ward Members stand disqualified for having not attended three consecutive ordinary meetings held during a period of four months preceding and therefore, invited disqualification forthwith. No doubt, on such a ground a member becomes disqualified but only upon an inquiry by the concerned authority in accordance with Section 26 thereof, hence, it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Ray, learned AGA and also Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties that all such action of a member till publication of the disqualification is entitled to act as if there is no disqualification. In other Page 5 of 8 words, it has to be held that each and every member against whom disqualification is alleged unless it is proved and established and so declared with a publication, he remains a valid member of the G.P. and is eligible to participate in all such proceedings including a motion. So therefore, the contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the default on the part of the Ward Members in attending the meetings, automatically invites disqualification in terms of Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and such disqualification commences with immediate effect after the default is again unacceptable for the reason that a procedure is prescribed under Section 26 of the Act and till the same is followed with an inquiry and finding by the concerned Authority such member remains a valid member of the G.P. Not only that, Section 26(3) of the Act stipulates that the validity of membership continues till a publication is made in terms thereof, so therefore, the ground as has been advanced referring to Section 25(2)(b) and inviting disqualification pending a decision by the Collector, Puri, namely, opposite party No.2 cannot be the basis to question the impugned notice for the motion.
9. In so far as the interim order of the Court in I.A. No.6904 of 2025 is concerned, this Court had directed that the no confidence motion in terms of Annexure-3 dated 7th April, 2025 shall be held and it would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of such an order, the result of motion was declared, an exercise, which has been undertaken by the Page 6 of 8 authorities below brought to the notice of the Court with the plea that the interim order in I.A. No.6904 of 2025 has been brazenly violated. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that in view of the nature of the order dated 29 th April, 2025 even though correspondences have taken place but there has been no bar in declaring the result and rightly, it has been done so. The Court is inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA that opposite party No.4 did not commit any illegality in declaring the result as the interim order in I.A. No.6904 of 2025 dated 29th April, 2025 is subject to the result of the writ petition.
10. The Court has considered the submission of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case laws cited. It is reiterated that opposite party No.4 has followed the procedure as per Section 24(2)(c) of the Act and such procedure has been in accordance with law, even though, no any rules are in place and therefore, the citation in Taylor and Singhara Singh (supra) of the Apex Court is inapplicable. It has to be held that due procedure has been followed by opposite party No.4 upon receiving the requisition and fixing the date for a special meeting to be held of the motion. All such other grounds, which have been raised from the side of the petitioner challenging the motion already held and addressed to the Court are also liable to rejection. In other words, the Court is of the humble view that opposite party No.4 did not commit any error or illegality in fixing the date for the motion and in the issuance of the impugned notice dated 7th April, 2025 as at Page 7 of 8 Annexure-3 and the entire exercise has been undertaken as per and according to law and therefore, the same cannot be challenged. So, the inevitable conclusion of the Court is that the decision of opposite party No.4 with the issuance of the notice vide Annexure-3 does not suffer any legal infirmity.
11. Accordingly, it is ordered.
12. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the interim order in I.A. No.6904 of 2025 dated 29th April, 2025 is hereby vacated, as a result.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 8 of 8 Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 19-Dec-2025 19:43:43