JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. RATH, J. - Assailing the notice dated 27.5.2015, vide Annexure-1, issued by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no.3, fixing the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 24.06.2015 at 10 A.M. for consideration of the requisition regarding “no confidence motion” against the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti in the year 2012.Thereafter, she was elected as a Chairman of the Paikmal Panchayat Samiti in the district of Bargarh. She discharged her duties with utmost satisfaction to the general public. During three years of her tenure, there was no complaint against her .While the matter stood thus, she received the notice along with requisition as well as proposal dated 27.5.2015, vide Annexure-1, issued by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no.3, fixing the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 24.06.2015 at 10 A.M. for consideration of the requisition regarding "no confidence motion" against her. It is further stated that the allegations made in the proposal are unfounded and baseless. The resolution was passed in a fraudulent manner. The signatures of the absentee members appeared in the resolution and the members intimated the same to the opposite party no.3 in writing. The opponents are determined to remove her from the post. They published motion in different oriya dailies.

3.Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It is stated that the meeting has been convened by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party n.3, after receipt of the requisition signed by more than two-thirds members of the Paikmal Panchayat Samiti along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved in that meeting. the resolution containing in the proposal was drawn up by the members of the Samiti. Opposite party no.3 verified the signatures of the members and found the same to be genuine. No member had ever complained or intimated the opposite party no.3 about the fraudulent signatures appearing in the requisition and resolution. The petitioner had not mentioned the names of such members whose signatures had been forged.

4.Heard Mr.G. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 4, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. L.N. Patel, learned counsel for the opposite parties 5 to 11, Mr. H.S. Mishra and Mr.S.S.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 12 to 16 and Mr. M.K. Mkishra, learned counsel for the intervenor.

5.Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the proposed resolution does not disclose the grounds for removal and, as such, the same is bad in law. The grounds mentioned in the resolution are vague and indefinite. He further submitted that on a conjoint reading of Section 40-A read with Section 46-B of the Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), it is manifest that the resolution must be backed by reasons. Thus the entire process is vitiated.

6.Learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 4, submitted that after receipt of the requisition and resolution of the members of the Samiti, the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no.3, issued notice to the petitioner as well as the members for holding no confidence motion and by majority of two-thirds members, the motion was passed.

7.Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite parties 5 to 11, submitted that Rule 46-B of the Act does not provide for assigning reasons in the resolution to be passed by the members of the Samiti. Section 40-A of the Act cannot be pressed into while moving the vote of no confidence against the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti.

8.Mr. H.S. Mishra and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 12 to 16, supported the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate.

9.Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned c