JUDGMENT

The writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission on the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard.

3. Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Machichalla Grama Panchayat in the district of Kalahandi in the Panchayat Election held in the year 2002, and assumed office accordingly. While the matter stood thus, some of the Ward Members including Naib-Sarpanch held meeting on 29.4.2005 and passed a resolution proposing vote of no confidence against the petitioner. They accordingly gave requisition Annexure-2 enclosing a copy of resolution Annexure-3 to the Sub-Collector, Dharmagarh to convene a meeting to record the vote of no confidence. Basing on such requisition the Sub-Collector issued notice to the Ward Members and the petitioner fixing the date of the meeting to 30.5.2005. The meeting was accordingly held and the no confidence motion was carried, whereafter Collector, Kalahandi issued letter No. 54 dated 9.6.2005 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and basing on that order a letter dated 9.6.2005 was served by the Panchayat on the petitioner asking him to make over charge of the Grama Panchayat to the Naib-Sarpanch. Aggrieved by such action petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging to the legality of the notice issued by the Sub-Collector, Dharmagarh, the holding of the meeting of no confidence on 30.05.2005, the order of issued by Collector dated 9.06.2005 and the letter dated 9.06.2005 in Annexure-4.

4. Mr. Jairaj Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice and the meeting dated 30.05.2005 are illegal as clear 15 days time was not given between the date of issuance of notice and the date of meeting as contemplated in Section 24 (2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). According to him, the provision of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act being mandatory in nature, the vote of no confidence recorded in the meeting dated 30.05.2005 is illegal and must be quashed. In support of that contention he relies on ratio in the case of Smt. Heeramani Munda v. Collector, Keonjhar and others*, 99 (2005) CLT 180 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that 15 days clear notice must be there and that the date of issue of notice and the date of meeting fixed for no confidence motion are to be excluded in computing the notice period of 15 days.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate in defending the action of Sub-Collector, submits that Sub-Collector had signed the notice on 13.05.2005, but 14th & 15th May, 2005 being public holidays, notices were issued on 16.05.2005. According to him, the notice having been signed on 13.05.2005 and the date of the meet¬ing being 30.05.2005, there was clear 15 days notice. He further argued that the mode of issuance of notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act being directory in nature and the petitioner having attended the meeting on 20.05.2005 there the motion for no confidence passed in his presence would not be rendered illegal. In support of his submission he relies on the case of Sarat Chandra Padhi v. State of Orissa and others, 1988 (I) OLR 76, a Full Bench decision.

6. The factual aspects that notice was issued on 16.05.2005 and the meeting for recording the no confidence motion was held on 30.05.2005 are not in dispute. In that respect in Paragraph-6 of the counter filed by opp. party Nos. 1 to 5 they have admitted to that fact situation. Thus, the questions for consideration are :

(i) Whether clear 15 days notice as contemplated under Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act was there ?

(ii) Whether participation of the petitioner in the meeting would stop him from challenging the legality of the meeting on the plea of want of proper notice ?

7. Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act reads thus :

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

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) In convening a meeting under Sub