Judgment

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10475 of 2014 being the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and directing to declare the result of “No Confidence Motion”.

2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the appellant being the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the notice dated 28.4.2014 issued by the Sub-Collector, Puri inter alia to convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 07.06.2014 for recording vote of “No Confidence” against her on the ground that the same was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions enshrined in Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, transgressing the provisions contained in Section 46-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959,(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Panchayat Samiti (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1969 and above all was violative of the circular of the State Government in the Department of Panchayati Raj bearing No. 31535 dated 30.9.2009.

The writ petitioner was elected as Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Kanas Block pursuant to the general Panchayat Election held in the year 2012. The tenure of the election being five years, the term would expire in the year 2017. While he was continuing in office, a vote of “No Confidence Motion” was initiated by some of the members of the Panchayat Samiti holding a meeting on 23.5.2014. Accordingly, requisition was placed on 27.5.2014 basing upon which the impugned notification was issued on 28.5.2014 for convening a special meeting to hold “No Confidence Motion” on 7.6.2014 against the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Kanas Block, the writ petitioner, appellant herein. Immediately two days thereafter, i.e. on 30.5.2014, His Excellency the President of India in exercise of the power conferred upon Clause-1 of Article 85 of the Constitution of India summoned the Lok Sabha to meet at New Delhi on Wednesday, the 4th June, 2014 at 11 a.m., which continued till 11th June, 2014.

3. Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, appellant herein, raised a contention before the learned Single Judge that in view of the notification No. PRI-I-(Admn.) 53/09/31535/PR dated 30.09.2009 the Sub-Collector could not have convened a special meeting to hold the “No Confidence Motion” on 07.06.2014 when the Parliament Session was continuing and thus, the same was in violation of the said Notification. He further urged that before holding such “No Confidence Motion” the provisions contemplated under Section 46(B)(2)(f-3) of the Act had to be followed in letter and spirit. Therefore, the entire proceeding was vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, more so being contrary to the provisions governing the field. Referring to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 02.09.2014 to which the writ petitioner had enclosed a copy of the letter dated 02.06.2014 obtained under the Right to Information Act Mr. Acharya submitted that the writ petitioner made a request to the Sub-Collector, Puri to defer the date of meeting for “No Confidence Motion” which was to be held on 07.06.2014 in view of the Government Circular dated 30.09.2009. He further urged that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to defend her own case, thereby the principles of natural justice were violated and also there was non-compliance with the provisions contained under Section 46(B)(2)(f-3) of the Act. According to Mr.Acharya, the aforesaid contentions having not been considered by the learned Single Judge, the impugned judgment in Annexure-4 was vitiated. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Nazir Ahmed v. Kind Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1211, Gudur Kishan Rao & Ors v. Sutirtha Bhattachaarya & Ors, 1998(2) Supreme Today 185, Smt. Kanti Kumbhar v. State of Or