Orissa High Court
Mitali Mishra 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.5917 of 2025
Mitali Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.6
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr.
Mr. K. Panda, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:23.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.02.2026
1.Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 21st February, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 26 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by opposite party No.2 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority and to allow her to work as Sarpanch of Amankuda Grama Panchayat (GP) and also the order dated 10th March, 2025 vide Annexure-29 of opposite party No.4 on the grounds inter alia that such an action is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set at naught in the interest of justice.
2. The election to the post of Sarpanch of the GP was held in the year 2022 and therein, the petitioner got elected and Page 1 of 20 assumed the office on 11th March, 2022. It is pleaded on record that petitioner had completed more than two years as Sarpanch of the GP but by order dated 21st February, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1, she was declared disqualified by opposite party No.2 exercising power under Section 26(2) of the Act without providing her reasonable opportunity to defend the proceeding. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 directed such disqualification by order dated 25th September, 2024 vide Annexure-2 but the proceeding was conducted in a casual manner and it was on the allegation that she is a registered contractor under the OPWD Act and there was a subsisting contract which invited the disqualification.
2.1. In that connection, a show cause notice dated 21st August, 2024 as at Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioner and in response to the same, she submitted a reply on 24th August, 2024 stating therein about the existence of the license but without any subsisting contract. The said show cause was submitted as per Annexure-4, as further pleaded. It is alleged that without considering the reply, opposite party No.2 issued a second show cause notice dated 11th September, 2024 i.e. Annexure-5. Irrespective of the above, it is pleaded that the petitioner approached opposite party No.2 on 14th September, 2024 subsequent to Annexure-5 and requested 15 days' time to respond to the same and moved an application for time vide Annexure-6 but it was followed by the order of disqualification at Annexure-2, as a result of which, W.P.(C) No.24866 of 2024 was filed, which Page 2 of 20 was disposed of on 4th October, 2024 for reconsideration of the decision, in accordance with the directions issued therein.
2.2. After the disqualification order at Annexure-2 was set aside allowing her to submit a detailed reply within the stipulated period but before that, request for supply of a copy of the report of the Chief Construction Engineer, which was relied on and referred to earlier, was made. The petitioner intimated the same to opposite party No.2 and waited till 9th November, 2024 to receive a copy of the said report, however, direction to supply it was not complied with, nevertheless, she filed a reply on 23rd October, 2024 denying the allegation levelled against her and once again requested to supply the relevant documents to file a response. According to the petitioner, a copy of the report of the Chief Construction Engineer dated 30th August, 2024 was finally supplied to her on 23rd October, 2024 with a notice issued and served on her on 29th October, 2024 and in response thereto, a further request was made to supply certain documents so as to rebut the allegation and also to cross-examine the officials and in anticipation of the same, she had approached opposite party No.2 on 8 th November, 2024. The petitioner would plead that notice was issued to her by registered post and she was directed to file reply by 20th November, 2024 and in compliance thereof, upon receiving letter dated 8th November, 2024 at Annexure-11, reply was filed on 19th November, 2024 duly accepted by opposite party No.2 and thereafter, the earlier request was Page 3 of 20 renewed to supply the documents and cross-examination of some of the officials.
2.3. In the meantime, in anticipation of an adverse order by opposite party No.2, the petitioner once again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.28879 of 2024 and it was disposed of on 17th December, 2024 with a direction to her to appear on a particular date and for a decision after providing her reasonable opportunity of hearing within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of such order and responding to the same, she appeared once again on 24th December, 2024 and filed reply as per Annexure-13 denying the allegation made and thereafter, by an order dated 24th December, 2024, after handing over certain documents, opposite party No.2 directed her to submit bank statement, GST return and details of the work undertaken and accordingly, fixed the hearing of the proceeding on 16 th January, 2025 intimating the same by letter dated 4th January, 2025 i.e. Annexure-15, which was, however, adjourned to 21st January, 2025 and on the date fixed, as per the direction, she furnished all the relevant documents with a request for cross-examination of the officials during the proceeding. As per the petitioner, the order thereon was reserved. As a usual practice, the next date of hearing was fixed to 13th February, 2025 duly intimated to her and on the said date of hearing, the representative of the Chief Construction Engineer, Suktel Project produced documents as at Annexure-22, copies of which, were served on her and similarly, the order was reserved without any decision on Page 4 of 20 the demand for examination of the officials and thereafter, a communication was received on 18th February, 2025 referring to an order dated 13th February, 2025 by opposite party No.2 allowing 7 days' time to file a reply but surprisingly, without any date fixed for a final hearing, the order of disqualification as per Annexure-1 arrived on 21st February, 2025. The petitioner pleads that the entire exercise initiated against her by opposite party No.2 is a result of political vendetta and hence, the order of disqualification vide Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with for not having provided her an opportunity to defend the action properly in the manner contemplated under law.
3. In course of hearing, it was claimed that the petitioner's disqualification had not been published but the said fact was denied by opposite party No.6 with reference to Annexure-1 and upon production of a copy of the letter dated 25 th February, 2025 him having taken over the charge of the office of the Sarpanch of the GP. It has been alleged that opposite party No.4 flouted the Court's order of status quo and transferred the P.E.O. and changed the specimen signature pursuant to the decision followed by a letter dated 10th March, 2025 i.e. Annexure-29 addressed to the P.E.O. of the GP intimating therein to immediately carry out the above direction and to submit the updates. Such is the plea of the petitioner with an affidavit filed on 14th April, 2025 and alleging further that the aforesaid action has been taken by opposite party No.2 in connivance with opposite party Nos.6 & 7 and the purpose was to legalize the illegality.
Page 5 of 204. A counter affidavit is filed by opposite party No.6 and it has been pleaded therein that there has been no illegality in the action at the behest of opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that the petitioner after having been elected as the Sarpanch of the GP managed a B-Class contractor license on 11th December, 2023 vide Annexure-A/6. It is also alleged therein that the petitioner executed four numbers of contractual work in Lower Suktel Project of Bolangir during the year 2023-24 and received the amount on 25th March, 2024 transferred to her bank account and thereafter, she surrendered her license on 24th August, 2024 only after the show cause notice dated 21st August, 2024 served on her though the same is valid up to 31st March, 2026 and under the above circumstances, since she is licensee and having a subsisting contract with the Government after being elected as Sarpanch of the GP incurred disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act and with reasonable opportunity of hearing provided, opposite party No.2 at last declared the disqualification vide Annexure-1. It is denied by opposite party No.6 with further pleading therein that the petitioner was supplied with the copies of the voucher and bank statement on 8th November, 2024 in respect of the works executed in the project during the year 2023-24 allowing her to file show cause and accordingly, responses were received on 8th November, 2024 itself and thereafter, on 19th November, 2024 in her reply, admitted the fact that she was a registered B-Class contractor under the Government. Lastly, it is pleaded that on 13th February, 2025, the petitioner was supplied with copies of Initial Security Page 6 of 20 Deposit Certificate at the rate of 1% of the work value pledged by her in favour of the Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel Project and thereafter, opposite party No.2 considering all such materials available on record arrived at a conclusion that she was having a subsisting contract with the Government after being elected as Sarpanch, hence, invited disqualification in view of Section 25(1)(n) of the Act and as such, there has been no any wrong or illegality committed and as a result, the decision vide Annexure-1 is perfectly justified and thus, it is not to be tinkered with.
5. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.6 and Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI with Mr. Panda, learned CGC for the Union of India.
6. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-1 under Section 26(2) of the Act is vitiated by procedural impropriety, non- compliance of the statutory requirements and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, cannot be sustained in the law. It is submitted that earlier disqualification directed by opposite party No.2 was quashed by this Court and allowed the petitioner to file a reply but in spite of such reply, with a malafide intention, notice was issued to her again for a response, which was interfered with in W.P.(C) No.28879 of 2024 disposed of on 17th December, 2024 with a direction to conclude the proceeding providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, whereafter, on 24th December, 2024, she again approached Page 7 of 20 and submitted a reply with a request for hearing but on 26 th December, 2024 in her absence, the order was passed. Thereafter, on 21st January, 2025, the relevant documents were submitted as per the direction and hearing took place without any order followed. It is further submitted that on 5th February, 2025, the Chief Construction Engineer submitted certain documents before opposite party No.2, which were furnished to the petitioner on 13th February, 2025 and thereafter, hearing was adjourned pending reply and again without any order passed therein, the impugned disqualification was declared on 21st February, 2025, as such, the entire exercise has been without a proper hearing having taken place. It has been alleged that opposite party No.2 dispatched the order on 14th February, 2025 fixing the date for hearing, which was communicated by Post received only on 18th February, 2025 by the father-in-law of the petitioner, however, her disqualification was ordered on 21 st February, 2025 without waiting for a reply and it was followed by the decision of disqualification.
6.1. The contention is that Section 26(2) read with Section 25(1)(n) of the Act mandates an enquiry into misuse of power or embezzlement before directing disqualification but no such independent enquiry was initiated and without complying the prescribed procedure under Section 26(3) of the Act, the disqualification has been directed. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sonam Lakra Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh & others in Civil Appeal No.12326 of 2024, the further contention is that in a quasi-judicial Page 8 of 20 proceeding, the authority concerned is to adhere to the provisions of the statute. It is alleged that in spite of the interim order dated 25th February, 2025 to maintain status quo, opposite party No.4 proceeded to hand over the charge of the GP to the Naib Sarpanch on 10th March, 2025. It is lastly contended that the petitioner is an elected representative and enjoys the mandate of the people and therefore, her disqualification without fair process being followed undermines the spirit of Article 243-G of the Constitution of India and in support of such contention, he cited a decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vrs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405 with the further submission that an elected office cannot be divested casually without due process. The contention is that opposite party No.2 with a pre-determined mind directed disqualification by order dated 21st February, 2025, which is not only procedurally flawed but also constitutionally impermissible and the entire sequence of events reflects the malafide intent, vitiated enquiry and abuse of power that demands judicial intervention and restoration of democratic process.
6.2. The decision in State of U.P. Vrs. Singhara Singh and others AIR 1964 SC 358 is cited to further contend that a statutory authority is to do things in a certain way as has been provided under the statute or not at all since other methods of performance are forbidden, which has been held in Nazir Ahmad Vrs. Emperor 1936 PC 253(1). With the Page 9 of 20 above submission, it is finally contended that due procedure has not been followed and the enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure established under law and hence, the order of disqualification dated 21st February, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1 suffers from legal infirmity.
7. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, would submit that due opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend and there has been no procedural irregularity committed by opposite party No.2. The contention is that all such incriminating materials were brought to the notice of the petitioner with an expectation of a befitting reply in defence and in absence thereof, opposite party No.2 had no other option except to declare her disqualification. It is further contended by Mr. Ray, learned AGA that the evidence in support of payment made to the petitioner through bank accounts in respect of the contract work executed by her in Lower Suktel Project during the year 2023-24 invited her disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act. The validity of the licence was till 2026 issued in the year 2023 and in between the project work was executed and it was accomplished by the petitioner, she being a B-Class Contractor and therefore, Mr. Ray, learned AGA would lastly submit that opposite party No.2 did not err or commit any illegality in declaring her disqualification.
8. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.6 would submit that the order of disqualification by opposite party No.2 is legal and justified, inasmuch as, adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner as made Page 10 of 20 to reveal from the impugned order itself revealing the fact that hearing had taken place on 24th February, 2024, 21st January, 2025 and lastly on 13th February, 2025. It is contended that the petitioner suffers from disqualification for the reason that after she was elected on 11th March, 2022, whereas, the contractor license was obtained by her on 11th December, 2023. The contention is that such issuance of contract and existence of a license with the petitioner would invite disqualification as held by this Court in Banamali Rout Vrs. Collector, Puri & another in W.P.(C) No.30367 of 2023 and therefore, opposite party No.2 committed no illegality in declaring disqualification and moreover, in first show cause reply at Annexure-4 dated 24th August, 2024, it has been admitted about her registration as PWD contractor but with an excuse that it was obtained in complete ignorance of the provisions of the Act and that apart, the work order was executed through the license, though, at last, the same was surrendered. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate would contend that petitioner had subsisting contract for the contractor license after being elected as the Sarpanch and that invites disqualification under the Act. With regard to the execution of work under the project though fraud has been alleged by the petitioner, according to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, no FIR was ever lodged, rather, she admitted the fund towards execution of work to have been transferred to her bank account, whereas, the copies of the relevant documents regarding execution of work with work orders, tender notice, agreement and bid Page 11 of 20 documents submitted by the office of the Lower Suktel Project had been brought to her notice and she was directed to submit the bank statement, income and GST returns etc. As against the documents available, it is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that she had not executed agreement, is totally false and is a subterfuge to dodge disqualification and besides that the income tax and GST return details would clearly show that for the project work, tax was paid towards utilization of the materials and services rendered to the Government and therefore, it is amply clear that after she was an elected Sarpanch had a subsisting contract license for execution of work and accepted payment from the Government and hence, invited disqualification to hold the office of Sarpanch of the GP.
9. Recorded the submission of Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI and Mr. Panda, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India. A memo is filed with annexures towards opening of account and purchase of certificate in the name of the petitioner for the Court's perusal.
10. In course of hearing, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order of the Apex Court dated 27 th September, 2024 in SLP(C) No.15073 of 2024 (Manisha Ravindra Panpatil Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) to contend that removal of Sarpanch should not be directed without conducting a fact-finding exercise so as to confirm the allegations levelled to be true or otherwise. The contention is that the Apex Court in the decision (supra) held and concluded that in the matter of removal of an Page 12 of 20 elected representative, it should not be treated lightly especially when it concerns women belonging to rural areas and it must be acknowledged that such women, who succeed in occupying public offices, do so only after significant struggle. The said decision has been referred to in Sonam Lakra (supra) with similar observations made by the Apex Court.
11. The question is, whether, the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing and if at all, there has been sufficient materials to conclude that she invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act for having a contractor license in her name and on the basis of such license, some project work was executed, as has been alleged by opposite party No.6.
12. An additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner to claim that status quo order was flouted since opposite party No.4 transferred the P.E.O. and changed the specimen signature and on 10th March, 2025 handed over the charge of the GP to the Naib Sarpanch vide Annexure-29.
13. Consequent upon the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.24826 of 2024, hearing of the matter was taken up and pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before opposite party No.2 on 24th December, 2024 and it was in the immediate presence of officers of the Lower Suktel Project, Bolangir. The Court finds that the A.E.E., Lower Suktel Project Division, Bolangir produced the signed records of the work executed by the petitioner as a B-Class contractor, Page 13 of 20 but in response, it was claimed that agreement shown to have been executed by her and the affidavit filed before the Notary along with the bid to be forged ones. On such claim, opposite party No.2 concluded that no FIR was ever lodged by the petitioner alleging such fraud, instead, there has been admission of fund received towards execution of the work being transferred to her account. The copies of all the relevant documents regarding execution of the work by the petitioner were submitted by the office of the Lower Suktel Project and it was also handed over to the petitioner and she was instructed to submit the bank statement, income tax details etc. in respect of the account, in which payment was received. After the hearing having taken place on 24 th December, 2024, it was adjourned to 21st January, 2025 and on the said date, the petitioner submitted the relevant documents and it revealed that fund towards execution of work to have been deposited on 25th March, 2024 in the bank account maintained by her and she also admitted that the GST for the said fund received have also been filed. The Court further finds that on 13th February, 2025 in presence of the petitioner and her counsel and officials of the Lower Suktel Project, the copies of the Initial Security Deposit Certificates at the rate of 1% work value pledged by her in favour of Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel Dam Project were handed over with a direction to submit a written reply within seven days but she failed to respond. In fact, opposite party No.2 considered the certificates for the work pledged at the Post Office and concluded that it forms a vital piece of evidence regarding her involvement in the Page 14 of 20 Government project and lastly, arrived at a conclusion that she invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act. It is not that the hearing has not taken place, instead, the Court finds that a reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to reply and respond to the materials produced by the officials of the Lower Suktel Dam Project, Bolangir. No reasonable explanation was offered by the petitioner within the stipulated period, rather, the evidence has been to the effect that she was involved in the Government project on the basis of the license issued as a B-Class contractor and it was during the tenure, when she was still a Sarpanch.
14. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never executed any such agreement and such claim falls flat considering the materials on record. In fact, any such plea cannot be accepted in juxtaposition to the documents produced before opposite party No.2 at the time of hearing. In fact, the Court finds that the petitioner demanded production of records but the same having been complied with during and in course of hearing, no reasonable explanation was offered with regard to the project work executed during the relevant period. It is also not in denial that the license was in force at the time when the project work was in progress and it was surrendered in the year 2024.
15. The decision of this Court in Banamali Rout (supra) is placed reliance on while challenging the claim of the petitioner on the premise that there was no subsisting Page 15 of 20 contract with the Government even though the license had been issued. In the case at hand, not only the license was possessed by the petitioner but also the evidence on the record established the fact that utilizing such license, the project work was undertaken by her. The disqualification generally occurs, if the license or contract places the candidate in a position of profit or conflict-of-interest under the Government as outlined in Section 25(1)(g) of the Act. If a Sarpanch holds a contractor license and is actively involved in any project work, it would be directly violating the conflict-of-interest provision as there should not be subsisting relationship between him and the Government. Section 25(1)(n) of the Act stipulates that a person having any interest in a subsisting contract invites disqualification. In the case of the petitioner, having regard to the materials on the record vis-à-vis the Lower Suktel Project, it is clearly discernible that she was involved in the project work at the relevant point of time while holding the post of Sarpanch of the GP. No plausible explanation was put forth by the petitioner, when she was confronted with the incriminating materials and was directed to submit the details of the bank statement etc. for the account, in which, the payment was received for the year 2020-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. In absence of any such reply received in time, opposite party No.2 had to reach at the conclusion that the petitioner being the Sarpanch was holding a license and with such license, work under the Lower Suktel Project was undertaken at her behest, hence, invited the disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act. The Court further finds that the reply to Page 16 of 20 be filed within seven days was well within the knowledge of the petitioner though any such notice said to have been received by Post just before expiry of the stipulated period but that by itself can not be ground to claim that she was prejudiced. Rather, the Court concludes that the petitioner had no explanation to offer and despite knowing that she was to submit reply within seven days remained silent, hence, under such circumstances, the plea of prejudice shall have to be outrightly rejected.
16. It has been alleged by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses have not been cross-examined and the proceeding was not taken up in the manner permissible under law. Such a proceeding, in the considered view of the Court, is to be held in a summary fashion unlike any other judicial proceedings. If in case, the authority concerned is of the view that examination of any witness is really necessary in the ends of justice, the same may be directed. But such examination cannot be demanded by a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the action is initiated, as a matter of right. If a particular fact is brought to the notice of the Sub-Collector and there is such a demand for examination of any witness and the same is considered absolutely necessary and expedient, it has to be allowed and not otherwise. If no explanation is put forth when one is confronted with the adverse materials in a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act, the Sub-Collector is not duty bound to accede to each and every request received. In a given circumstance, any of the official Page 17 of 20 witnesses may be directed to appear and subjected to cross- examination while dealing with a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act but according to the Court, for that, a case has to be made out. A proceeding for disqualification is unlike a regular judicial proceeding or a trial but it must have to be ensured by the Sub-Collector that the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, as the case may be, is confronted with all such adverse materials brought on record. In absence of a timely response from the side of the petitioner, as it is made to reveal from the record, opposite party No.2 without proceeding further, directed disqualification but before that, with an intimation to finally respond. It is claimed by the petitioner that such notice was not properly served and no reasonable time was allowed for her to reply and respond. But, in the considered view of the Court, it is not the case where time was not allowed for the petitioner and hurriedly opposite party No.2 disposed of the proceeding. The dates on which the hearings have taken place, all such documents produced by the officials of the Lower Suktel Project were handed over to the petitioner expecting a reply from her, which did not happen thereafter and hence, the proceeding had to be concluded with a decision on disqualification. Not only that, the petitioner had approached this Court twice before and directions were issued for a proper hearing by opposite party No.2. It cannot be said that the authority concerned did not comply the orders and allow reasonable time to the petitioner to defend. All such materials produced before opposite party No.2 prima facie revealed the involvement of the petitioner in the project work and it was Page 18 of 20 for her to genuinely respond but the petitioner denied any such project work to have been undertaken by her even denying any such agreement in place with a plea of fraud advanced. According to the Court, such conduct of the petitioner is evasive and purposefully to avoid action and disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act. The Court is not inclined to accept any such plea of the petitioner as to absence of reasonable time to participate and defend the proceeding. Rather, the conduct does not appear to be proper denying the agreement altogether to have been executed by her having no proper explanation offered as against the adverse materials produced before opposite party No.2. It is, therefore, not a fit case, where the Court should intervene with the action of opposite party No.2 in declaring the petitioner as disqualified for having executed the contract work, which is a ground of disqualification under the Act. In other words, the impugned order of disqualification as at Annexure-1 by opposite party No.2 suffers from no infirmity and hence, does not call for any interference.
17. That apart, the Court is alive to the decision in Sonam Lakra (supra) and conscious of the ground realities but is of the humble view that due procedure has been followed demanding an explanation from the petitioner but failing to receive, opposite party No.2 rightly declared her disqualification which she invited under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act for having executed a contract with the Government. It is not that there has been a whimsical decision but it has Page 19 of 20 been arrived at after confronting all the incriminating materials to the petitioner and for not receiving any convincing reply from her, hence, not to be tampered with and accordingly, it is ordered.
18. 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 20 of 20