JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Though this matter was listed for admission, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Budhikapudi Grama Panchayat has filed this writ application challenging the order in Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar removing her from the post of Sarpanch on the basis of resolution passed in a no-confidence motion.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was elected as Sarpanch of the aforesaid Grama Panchayat under Patna Block and after assuming office she has been sincerely working for development of the Grama Panchayat. On the basis of a requisition made by some of the members, a meeting was fixed for holding of no-confidence motion on 30.7.2004 and the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 15.7.2004 by the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar. It is alleged in the petition that on 30.7.2004 there was no discus¬sion on the vote of no-confidence against the petitioner, but the Presiding Officer without maintaining the secrecy of voting directed the voters to vote against the petitioner. The votes were also given in open. These allegations were brought to the notice of the Collector in Annexure-2, but in spite of the same, the Collector passed the impugned order in Annexure-3 on the basis of the resolution passed in the no-confidence motion. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the resolution passed in the no-confidence motion as well as the order of the Collector in Annexure-3 removing her from the office of the Sarpanch only on the ground that even though the Statute provides for clear fifteen days notice, the Sub-Collector issued notice on 15.7.2004 fixing the date of no-confidence motion to 30th July, 2004. According to the learned counsel, the date of issuance of notice and the date fixed for no-confidence motion have to be excluded from fifteen days notice and in the event those two days are excluded, the petitioner had only thirteen days notice. This being in violation of the statutory provision as contained in the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, the resolu¬tion passed in the no-confidence motion is a nullity and, there¬fore, the Collector could not have acted upon such resolution while passing the order in Annexure-3.

4. This being the only question raised before this Court, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision of the Act. Section 24 (2)(c) provides as follows :

“24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch-

(2)(c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requi¬sition shall fix the date, hour and place of such meeting and give notice of the same to all the members holding office on the date of such notice alongwith a copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed”.

5. Relying on the aforesaid provision, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given fifteen days clear notice as required under the said provision. In this connection, reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa and others reported in 1988 (I) OLR 76. The majority view in the aforesaid decision is as follows :

“Requirement of giving the notice and fixing the margin of time between the date of notice and date of meeting are manda¬tory, violation of which will make the meeting invalid. But the mode of service or failure by any member to receive the notice or allowing less than 15 clear days before the meeting is directory. The decision 45 (1978) CLT 313 holding that the entire provision, is directory, is not correct.

The scheme of the notice contemplate under Sec. 24 (2)(c) may be divided into three parts - (i) requirement of giving the notice (ii) fixing the margin of time between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting, and (iii) service of notice on the members, I am of the view, which is also conced¬ed