The legal requirements for the notice of a no confidence motion and the voting rights of different members of the Samiti were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Biswal, J. - As per the writ petition, the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of Gudvella Panchayat Samiti in the last election held in the year 2007. She discharged her duties as per the provision of law contained in Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and Rules framed there under. As she did not comply with the illegal demands of some Panchayat Samiti members, they forming an unholy combination tried their best to dislodge her from the office of Chairperson. They held a meeting on 8.4.2011 and passed a resolution to bring no confidence motion against the petitioner and made a requisition to the Sub-Collector, Bolangir to fix the venue date and time for holding such meeting. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector issued notice along with requisition on 15.4.2011 to all the Samiti members indicating that the meeting would be held on 26.4.2011 at 9 A.M. in the Block office meeting hall under Annexure-1 series. The petitioner seriously doubted the authenticity of the signatures found in the requisition as well as in the proceeding of the meeting. The notice was not accompanied by the proposed resolution containing the reasons to be moved in the no confidence motion against her.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that as required under law, notice of the meeting regarding no confidence motion is to be sent to the members having right to vote, but, in the present case, notice has been issued to the Member of Parliament Bolangir, MLA. Titilagarh and panchayat Samiti members along with all Sarpanchs. So, the notice is defective. Under such circumstances, she prays to quash the notice dated 15.4.2011 as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Opp. parties nos. 5 to 23, all of whom are members of the panchayat samiti, in their counter affidavit inter alia contended that notice was issued to all the members of the panchayat samiti in accordance with law. The requisition and the proposed resolution were enclosed with the notice. They claimed that all of them have signed in the proceeding of the meeting, requisition and the proposed resolution.

4. Op. party nos.2 to 4 in their counter affidavit contended that on receipt of the requisition along with copy of the proposed resolution for convening a special meeting in connection with no confidence motion against the petitioner, the Sub-Collector, Bolangir (Opp. party no. 3) in exercise of his power conferred u/s 46-B of the Act correctly issued the notice under Annexure-1 series. Out of total 26 members of Gudvella Panchayat Samiti, 19 members signed the requisition. After receipt of the requisition, opp.party no.3 requested the B.D.O., Gudvella Block to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the signatories found on the requisition and the proposed resolution by comparing the same with their signatures given in the proceeding book of the panchayat samiti. Accordingly, the signatures were compared and the B.D.O., Gudvella Block vide letter dated 13.4.2011 intimated the Sub-Collector, Bolangir that the signatures on the proposed resolution and the requisition were genuine.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice sent to the members of the panchayat samiti does not contain the proposed resolution, as required u/s 46-B(2)(c) of the Act. He further submits that notice of meeting regarding no confidence motion has to be addressed only to the members having right to vote. In the present case, notice has been issued to the Members of Parliament Bolangir, MLA Titilagarh, Panchayat Samiti members along with all sarpanchs. So, the notice is defective. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures contained in the resolution as well as in the proceeding of the meeting dated 8.4.2011 appear to have been forged to the naked eye, but, the Sub-Collector, has not taken any steps to verify those signatures. So, according to him the notice deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the opp.parties nos.5 to 23 submits tha