The requirement of giving notice under S. 24 (2) (c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, is directory and not mandatory.

H. L. AGRAWAL, CJ.

( 1 ) WHETHER the period of at least fifteen clear days' fixed for convening a meeting by giving a notice for consideration of the resolution for want of confidence in the Sarpanch/naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, as provided under S. 24 (2) (c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') is mandagory in nature ? Is the threshold question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of some observations made in a Bench decision of this Court in Debraj Mallika v. Collector, Puri, (1978) 45 Cut LT 313.

( 2 ) THE facts are undisputed and lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Chandpur Grama Panchayat in the district of Dhenkanal sometime in December, 1983. A motion expressing want of confidence was proposed against him and a notice requisitioning a meeting of the members of the Grama Panchayat signed by the requisite number of embers was made over to the Sub-divisional Officer, Kamakshyanagar (O. P. No. 3 ). Undisputedly, a notice bearing No. 5392 dated 3-9-1985 (Annexure-3) was issued by O. P. No. 3 to all the members of the Panchayat. A copy of the notice was also sent to the members under certificate of posting as required under S. 24 (2) (d) of the Act:the meeting was held according to the schedule on 24-9-1985 which was presided over by O. P. No. 3, and in the meeting, 11 out of 12 members present and voting supported the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner. The petitioner had also received the said postal notice on 12-9-1985, but the primary grievance of the petitioner is that the notice of the meeting that was served upon him did not give him clear fifteen days time before the meeting. Therefore, the vote of no-confidence motion passed in the illegal meeting could not be held to be any binding effect in the eye of law. The contention aforesaid has to be followed within the parameters of the statutory provisions.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of O. P. Nos. 1 to 4, it has been asserted that the notice was given to all the members holding the office of the Grama Panchayat and that a copy of the notice was also published on the notice board of the panchayat Samiti on 6-8-1985. Therefore, all the requirements of the law were validly complied with and the petitioner has no case at all.

( 4 ) IN a separate counter-affidavit filed by O. P. No. 17 allegation has been made that the son-in-law of the petitioner was the Branch Postmaster in the concerned Post-office and he manoeuvred to delay the service of the notice in due time. In the normal course, the letter issued from the post-office on 3-9-1987 to be also delivered by the same post-office, time of 8-9 days was not required. It has been further stated that the Panchayat Office was being held in the house of the petitioner itself and the notice board was in the outer varandah of his residence. On these allegations, it has been asserted that the plea of proper service of the notice of the meeting is without any basis.

( 5 ) WHEN the case was earlier heard by a Division Bench, it entertained a doubt regarding the correctness of the decision in Debaraj Mallika's case (1978-45 Cut LT 313) (supra) observing that the provision contained in S. 24 (2) (c) of the Act was directory in nature. In view of the importance of the question the matter has been referred to a larger Bench.

( 6 ) LET us refer to the relevant provisions :-24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch : (i) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch the resolution shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolution publish the same on his n