SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ori) 307

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. & B. N. MAHAPATRA, J.
Nanda Kishore Sahoo - Petitioner
Versus
Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Orissa and others – Opp. Parties
W.P. (C) No. 18662 of 2010
Decided on : 9th October, 2012

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner:Mr. Y. Das, Senior Advocate, M/s. Bharati Dash, B.C. Sahoo, B.N. Panda-2, Miss Rita Singh, A.K. Rout
For Opp. Parties : M/s. Gopal Krushna Mohanty, P.K. Panda, D. Mishra, J. Mohapatra, M. Khan
M/s. Sanjit Mohanty, Sr. Adv S.P. Panda, S. Patnaik

Headnote:ORISSA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1950 - Sec. 16(1)(viii), 17(d), 38 and 38-A - Motion of no confidence moved on the basis of the requisition and no confidence motion notice issued by the Collector - Writ - Election of opp. party No.5 and 6 was neither challenged under Sec. 38 or 38-A of the Act till the proposal for no-confidence was moved - Held, there is no statutory voidness under Sec. 16(1)(viii) of the Act if a member of the council who has suffered disqualification under the provision of the Act at the time of filing nomination to contest in the election to the councillorship of NAC/Municipality, his/her election as member of the NAC Municipality shall be statutorily void without there being challenge to the election of such councillorship of the NAC/Municipality - No interference.

       By the time the proposal for no-confidence motion was moved, neither any action under Section 38 or Section 38-A had been initiated by any Councillor against opposite party Nos. 5 and 6. No decision had also been taken by the District Judge whether-or not opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 were disqualified. Therefore in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 38 they were entitled to act as if they were- not disqualified. Similarly due to pendency of petition under Section 38, the State Government could not take any decision with regard to the disqualification of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 by the time the no-confidence motion was proposed and passed. (Paras - 1 0 to 15)

       

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - Challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner is to the legality of the notice of special meeting to move no - confidence motion issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal on 12.10.2010 under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder on the ground that the said notice of meeting to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner on the basis of requisition submitted by opposite party Nos. 5 to 10 along with the proposed resolution dated 1.10.2010 against him to the Collector on 6.10.2010 has been submitted by invalid and disqualified councillors.

2. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was earlier heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by judgment dated 13.7.2011 on an analysis of fact and the law, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no illegality in the notice issued for special meeting for moving No-confidence Motion against the petitioner and directed publication of the result of the No-confidence Meeting. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed RVWPET No. 152 of 2011. While making submission, the learned counsel for the review petitioner brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the matter related to No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner-Chairperson of the N.A.C., Bhuban under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 and, therefore this writ petition cannot be heard by a learned Single Judge as per the assignment of roster. The learned single Judge referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Darasingh Kumbhar v. State of Orissa and two others, 2004 (II) OLR 707 - where it was categorically laid down the law that a matter to be dealt with by a Division Bench if has been disposed of by a learned Single Judge, the said judgment is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Holding that at the time of hearing it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the matter should be dealt with by a Division Bench and the judgment, was passed erroneously, the leaned Single Judge vide order dated 23.2.2012 passed in the review petition recalled the judgment dated 13.7.2011 which was sought to be reviewed in its entirety along with all orders passed earlier; and directed the Registry to place the matter before the assigned Division Bench. That is how, this writ petition is listed before this Bench.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to narrate the brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition which are as under :

On 19.9.2008 election to the office of the Chairperson of Bhuban Notified Area Council of Dhenkanal district was held and the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson. The allegation of the petitioner is that on 1.10.2010, six out of the total number of 15 councillors moved a no-confidence proposal against him and submitted a requisition to the Collector on 6.10.2010 along with the proposal dated 1.10.2010. Pursuant to such requisition sent along with the proposal, the Collector issued notice on 12.10.2010 to all the 15 councillors to attend the meeting to be held on 10.11.2010 in the meeting hall of the Bhuban N.A.C. to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner is that on 12.10.2010 the Chairman of the NAC in an adjourned meeting vide resolution No. 6(1), disqualified O.P. No. 10 (Councillor) in presence of other three councillors, pursuant to which resolution, the Executive Officer, Bhuban NAC requested the O.P. No. 2, Director, Municipal Administration to take necessary action regarding disqualification of O.P.10 (Councillor), which is pending and no action till date has been taken by the Director, Municipal Administration. Challenging the same, opposite party No.10 filed W.P.(C) No. 18087 of 2010 in this Court .which was subsequently withdrawn on 29.10.2010 to take recourse to Section 38 of the OMC Act. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 18662 of 2010 on 29.10.2010.























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top