Orissa High Court
Sukanti Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 11142 of 2025
Sukanti Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K, Dalai, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate for O.P.Nos.6 to 13
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P.No.16
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 12.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:10.11.2025
1.Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-5 issued by opposite party No.4 in connection with a vote of no confidence initiated by opposite party Nos. 6 to 16 on the grounds inter alia that the same is arbitrary, illegal, without authority and contrary to the provisions envisaged under Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to declare the proposed resolution dated 27th January, 2025 i.e.Annexure-4 as having no sanction of law.
2. As pleaded on record, according to the petitioner, the election was held in the year 2022 and she was elected to the office of the Sarpanch of Gopinathpur GP in the district of Puri and ever since assumed office, has been performing her duties and responsibilities with sincerity. It is pleaded that at Page 1 of 15 the GP in question consists of eleven Wards and out of that, ten Ward Members have been elected and for the rest one, none could be elected due to non-availability of ST candidates. The further pleading is that the petitioner received the notice i.e. Annexue-1 on 8th March, 2025 from opposite party No.4 in terms of Section 24(1) of the Act about a special meeting to be held on 21st March, 2025 at 11 A.M. at a time when she was in hospital having undergone a bye-pass surgery. It is pleaded further that the said notice was sent to her without the copies of resolution and requisition, whereafter, she inquired about the same and during that time, received a caveat notice i.e. Annexure-2 from opposite party No.6, a Ward Member of Ward No. 9 and upon perusal of the same, she was made to understand that on 27th January, 2025, a resolution for a motion of no confidence was passed and said to have communicated to opposite party No.4 by letter dated 3rd February, 2025. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 27th January, 2025, as per the information received, a meeting was held and continued for hours together and up to 12.30 P.M. ultimately leading to the passing of another resolution i.e. Annexure-3, hence, no such resolution for no confidence motion was ever passed, the reason being that there could not have been two meetings at the same point of time with the participation of the Ward Members, inasmuch as, the resolution i.e. Annexure-3 was passed in presence of the Government officials is more authentic and therefore, having any other meeting for the motion was not possible and hence, any such proceeding claimed to have been held is totally a falsehood.
Page 2 of 153. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7426 of 2025 challenging the notice for non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act and was disposed of on 2nd April, 2025 and it was disposed of with a direction to the requisitionists to provide a copy of the proposed resolution and requisition to opposite party No.4 therein as it was addressed to opposite party No.2 and upon receiving the same, the said authority shall do the needful. It has been further claimed that in view of the above order, opposite party No.4 issued notice dated 8th April, 2025 and fixed the special meeting to be held on 28th April, 2025 and it was accepted by the petitioner with objection. The pleading is that on the basis of the same resolution and requisition, opposite party No.4 proceeded to fix up the date for the motion without complying Section 24 of the Act, hence, the entire exercise for no confidence motion is vitiated. With the above pleading on record, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-5 issued by opposite party No.4 has been assailed.
4. The State filed the counter through opposite party No.4. According to the said reply affidavit, upon receiving the requisition i.e. Annexure-A/4, the date was fixed by opposite No.4 and it was consequent upon the Court's order in W.P.(C) No. 7426 of 2025, hence, no illegality has been committed with the issuance of notice to all the members as per Annexures-B/4 series. It is further pleaded therein that the Tahasildar, Satyabadi was authorized to preside over the special meeting of no confidence motion with an order as per Annexure-C/4 and at the same time, the concerned B.D.O. Page 3 of 15 was requested to direct the Panchayat Executive Officer of Gopinathpur GP to identify the Ward Members at the time of entry into the meeting hall, where the motion was to be held. It is also pleaded that the vote of confidence was held on 28 th April, 2025 but result of the same was declared in view of the Court's interim order dated 24th April, 2025 in I.A. No. 6728 of 2025 and it has been kept in a sealed cover and preserved in a strong room of the District Treasury, Puri as per the letter of opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-E/4. At last, it has been pleaded that the special meeting for the no confidence motion was held in compliance of the Court's order dated 2nd April, 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 7426 of 2025 and in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, she did receive copies of the proposed resolution and requisition with the notice dated 8th April, 2025. In so far as the verification of the Ward Members as has been alleged by the petitioner not to have taken place, it is pleaded there is no such provision for the same and rightly, the Panchayat Executive Officer of the GP in question was instructed to identify all the Ward Members to attend the motion and hence, there is due compliance of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and no illegality as such has been committed by opposite party No.4.
5. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State; Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.16.
6. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was not received by the Page 4 of 15 petitioner with the copies of the proposed resolution and requisition and that apart, fresh requisition was not submitted before opposite party No.4, who instead accepted the very same requisition and fixed the date for the motion and therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 24 of the Act. It is also contended that due to such non-compliance, any notice issued as per Annexure-5 by opposite party No.4 vitiated the whole process. It is further submitted that as the motion has not been held in the manner contemplated complying the Court's order in W.P. (C) No.7426 of 2025 but with the same requisition again received, opposite party No.4 could not have fixed the date for the special meeting. In other words, according to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel, there was no fresh requisition with a valid resolution passed and received by opposite party No.4 in compliance of the Court's order in W.P. (C) No.7426 of 2025. That apart, it is claimed that there is no confirmation with regard to the identity or consent of the Ward Members with the quorum necessary in view of Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and that raises a serious doubt on the issue of authentication and verification, which is a jurisdictional pre-condition to act upon the requisition. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vrs. Singhara Singh & others AIR 1964 SC 358, it is submitted by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel that when the statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must have to be accomplished in that manner only or not at all and in view of the above law laid down, opposite party No.4 having received requisition not with any fresh resolution, the motion must have to fail. By citing another decision in Page 5 of 15 Gulam Mustafa and othersVrs. The State of Maharashtra & others AIR 1977 SC 448, the contention is that illegality in the initiation of the proceeding is to vitiate the entire action and the petitioner being an elected representative, any such decision to remove her from office by such an exercise is illegal and procedurally flawed and it would undermine the democratic will of the electorate, hence, the impugned notice and consequential action shall have to be set at naught.
7. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter of opposite party No.4 is received on record and the same is gone through.
8. A convenience note is received from Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner along with the list of citations and the same are also perused.
9. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State would submit that the resolution was passed with a two third quorum and requisition by one third of the total Ward Members and upon receiving the same, opposite party No.4 issued the impugned notice i.e.Annexure-1 and in compliance of the Court's order in W.P. (C) No.7426 of 2025, fixed the date for such motion with a notice i.e. Annexure-5 and it has been held in the meantime and as such, there has been compliance of Section 24 of the Act. It is further submitted that such notice was issued to all and everyone including the petitioner, hence, to claim that the same was not received by her with the proposed resolution and requisition has to be rejected out rightly. Since the intention of the Ward Members as per the resolution was to Page 6 of 15 initiate the vote of no confidence against the petitioner and a proposed resolution was sent along with the requisition, it is further submitted that opposite party No.4 immediately acted upon the same and fixed the date for the motion. According to Mr. Ray, learned AGA, necessary instructions were imparted to the concerned B.D.O. and also the Panchayat Executive Officer of the GP to ensure that the motion is held smoothly and in that view of the matter, such an exercise cannot be held as invalid.
10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 submits that in view of the compliance of Section 24 of the Act and the decision of the Ward Members clearly being to initiate a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, opposite party No.4 was left with no option except to fix up the date for the special meeting to be held for the said purpose. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.16 supports the contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA and Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 to submit that there is no glaring wrong or illegality committed by opposite party No.4, who upon receiving the requisition, proceeded to convene the meeting on the date fixed.
11. In fact, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the GP in 2022. In the month of January, 2025, the resolution was passed. After such resolution, opposite party No.4 received the requisition on 3rd February, 2025. With a margin of fifteen days from the date of issuance of notice, the special meeting was directed to be held and it was consequent upon Page 7 of 15 receipt of the requisition, the proposed meeting for the no confidence motion was fixed to 21st March, 2025 and at last, it was followed by the Court's order in W.P. (C) No. 7426 of 2025. It is claimed that no such valid resolution ever existed but opposite party No.4 received the requisition and thereafter, on 30th January, 2025 issued the notice followed by Annexure-5 for the special meeting for the no confidence motion. The claim of the petitioner is that while, she was under treatment at the hospital, received such notice and it was not accompanied with the proposed resolution and requisition and similarly, notice as per Annexure-5 was not preceded by any resolution freshly passed. On perusal of Annexure-1, it is made to appear that the petitioner received the notice but with objection.
12. The compliance of Section 24 of the Act is necessary and when an exercise is undertaken, it is in normal course that notice is sent with the resolution and requisition received by the Sub-Collector to all the members of the GP. It is quite unusual to believe that a notice for the motion was issued to the petitioner without annexing the proposed resolution and requisition to the same. In course of hearing, the decisions of this Court in W.A. No. 227 of 2014 dated 5 th August, 2014 and W.A. No. 296 of 2011 decided on 8th September, 2011 have been referred to by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, it is submitted that for failing to comply the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, the no-confidence motions initiated were quashed. Referring to a decision of this Court in Smt.Chandrama Naik Vrs. State of Orissa & Page 8 of 15 others 2006(Supp.I) OLR-1038, it is contended by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel that once the meeting was not convened and it was deferred, no further meeting can be held within a period of one year from the date of such meeting and in reply to the above, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that the date fixed for meeting was never held and therefore, the decision (supra) is inapplicable.
13. One of the limbs of argument is that less than 15 days was available for the petitioner to respond to the notice as it was received with delay at the time when she was in hospital. Such a question was dealt with by this Court in Kusum Deep & another Vrs. State of Odisha & others in W.P. (C) No. 26627 of 2024 and therein, referring to the decision in Sarat Padhi Vrs. State of Odisha & others AIR 1988 Odisha 116, it was concluded that the mode of service of notice is not mandatory and even if the same is received with some amount of delay, unless prejudice is caused and it is demonstrated, the exercise would not stand vitiated. While reaching at such a conclusion in Kusum Deep (supra), this Court took judicial notice of an earlier decision in Nirakar Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2022(I) OLR 377 to conclude that prejudice is required to be proved in case any such delay in receiving notice is alleged. In the case at hand, it is not suggested that the petitioner did not have the knowledge about the no confidence motion. It is not that there has been inordinate delay in serving notice for the motion on the petitioner, who claimed to be at the hospital by then. Law is well settled that issuance of notice as per Page 9 of 15 Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is mandatory and not the mode of service of notice. A public notice is also one of the means to intimate all concerned about the special meeting to be held for the motion. Unless, an exceptional case is made out to show that the notice even though with a date having a margin period of 15 days was served on the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch but it was with an oblique motive and intention to defeat and frustrate his right to defend and to participate in the deliberation during the special meeting to be held and that he has been served with such notice with considerable delay sometime before the motion, under such circumstances alone, it could be a case of prejudice to have been caused. But, the law provides the means of service of notice by a public notice in view of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act besides sending it by Post and the moment it is proved and established that the notice was either issued in time and received with some amount of delay but any prejudice and it was well within the knowledge of the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch against whom the motion is initiated, the same would be substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and in that case, the exercise initiated cannot be held as invalid.
14. It is the stand of the State that the motion has been held pursuant to the resolution and decision of opposite party No.4 in view of the order of this Court dated 7th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 4962 of 2025 filed by opposite party No.8 with the plea that there is compliance of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 would submit that Page 10 of 15 the motion as has already been held in the meantime should not be interfered with and upon dismissal of the writ petition, the result of such motion should be declared forthwith.
15. In so far as the claim that the resolution is not a valid one, as another meeting was held on the same day, it is difficult on the part of the Court to accept such a plea. It may so happen that the proceedings held and continued as per the business schedule of the day and ultimately, the resolution for the motion in one of such meetings was passed and to entertain any such doubt about the authenticity of the resolution, in absence of any such materials on record demonstrating that it could not have been possible at all, such plea advanced shall have to be rejected outrightly. It would be a mere surmise and conjecture to allege that no such resolution could have been passed with other agenda tabled in another meeting for discussion by the GP. Since the resolution was passed and cleared and it was followed by the requisition, opposite party No.4 was statutorily obliged to respond and to fix up a date for the special meeting without doubting its authenticity on any such ground as it related to the internal business of the of the GP and a decision for a vote of no confidence, in which, he is having no other role to play except to facilitate the meeting to be held.
16. As far as, the decision of opposite party No.4 is concerned, in the issuance of Annexure-5, the Court is of the humble view that the direction in W.P.(C) No. 7426 of 2025 was complied with and hence, there was no need for a fresh resolution and requisition for the motion to be held. It was Page 11 of 15 never the direction therein to repeat the exercise well aware of the fact the special meeting was not held and is required to be rescheduled. In Smt. Chandrama Naik (supra), it has been held that Section 24(3) of the Act would not be applicable, if no such meeting was held like in the present case and hence, the Court is in agreement with Mr. Ray, learned AGA to hold that the decision is inapplicable.
17. It has been the settled legal position that 15 days is to be counted from the date when the notice for the motion is signed and the date of the special meeting to be held. According to the Court, it is not to be computed from the date when the notice was received by the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, for that matter. If any such view is taken to count 15 days period from the date, the notice was received, a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch may avoid receiving the same and delay and defeat the motion. In the case at hand, the petitioner is said to have received the notice two days after, it was signed and dispatched having left with 13 days to respond. It is not a case that the notice was received shortly before the date of the special meeting held. It is not alleged that notice was signed but dispatched belatedly some time just before the meeting was convened and it was purposefully to defeat the rights of the petitioner. If it is shown that notice is signed and sent in the manner contemplated besides following Section 24(2)(d) of the Act, the compliance is over. A dated notice singed by the Sub-Collector is to be dispatched by Post and published seven days before the motion to be held. No doubt, section 24(2)(c) of the Act Page 12 of 15 specifies that the notice is to mention the date, time and place of the motion to be held sent along with resolution requisition. The said provision prescribes that a Sub- Collector shall have to give notice to the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. The personal service of notice is accomplished and simultaneously, it is ensured in terms of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. If there is personal service notice on the Sarpanch, besides its dispatch in the manner prescribed under the Act, there is full compliance. A notice sent by Post is prescribed besides a public notice seven days before the motion is held and the purpose of the Act is to provide the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, whosever, reasonable time to defend. The plea of the petitioner herein is that she received notice having less than 15 days cannot be a ground to defeat the motion when a margin period of 15 days was allowed before the motion could be held. In Sarat Padhi case, it has been held that requirement of 15 days margin with the issuance of notice accompanied with requisition and proposed resolution is mandatory, which has been duly complied with in the case of the petitioner.
18. The contention of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the actual service is directory in nature but in view of the fact that there is less than 15 days left for the petitioner to respond and as per the decision in Sarat Padhi (supra), 15 days period is mandatory, hence, there is non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. Respectfully, the Court is in disagreement with the above contention for the reason that 15 days is to be calculated from Page 13 of 15 the date when the notice was signed and not when it has been received by the petitioner and since from the date, it was signed and the motion to be held, there was clear 15 days allowed, there is compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act.
19. Lastly, referring to a decision in Bhanumati and others Vrs. State of UP & others 2010 (12) SCC 1, it is contended by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner that any such motion shall have to be held in a democratic manner, which has been a departure herein. The Apex Court, in the case (supra), held that any head of a democratic institution must be prepared to face the test of confidence as no one is immune from such test but it has been emphasized therein that such action and removal of anyone, be a Sarpanch, must have to be in a manner underscoring that a no confidence vote is itself subject to democratic norms and procedure. According to Mr. Dalai, learned counsel, the above decision was to ensure the balance between the collective will of the Panchayat with the due process necessary, which is just and fair. Referring to host of other decisions, it is contended that no confidence motion is a quasi-judicial process, thus, the rules prescribed for the same are to be scrupulously followed, as any such removal by a no confidence motion being a special provision, condition precedent thereto must be strictly adhered to. A reference has been made to Article 243-G of the Constitution of India inserted by way of 73rd Amendment, which envisages devolution of power and responsibility to Panchayats to function as institutions of self-government. The contention is that the Constitution leaves it to the State Page 14 of 15 Legislature to determine the removal process of the office bearers of the Panchayat and this implies that the statutory provisions like Section 24 of the Act should be construed in a manner that strengthens self-governance. But, having regard to facts of the case leading to the motion finally held, the Court is of the conclusion that there has been due compliance of the provisions of the Act without deviation, rather, in compliance of the Act, hence, the impugned notice as per Annexure-1 followed by Annexure-5 cannot be held as invalid on any such grounds advanced and accordingly, it is ordered.
20. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita/Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 13-Nov-2025 16:16:44 Page 15 of 15