The Court held that the revisional authority erred in law by treating the forwarding letter of the Vice-Chairman as the requisition and by requiring a separate document for the proposed resolution. It also held that the absence of a seal on the notice did not invalidate the notice since the law did not require it.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray to quash the order of the State Government u/s 54-A of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The opposite party No. 1 was elected as the Chairman of the Jujnmura Panchayat Samiti. On 24-3-1985, the Petitioners and one Surendra Prasad Nayak resolved expressing their want of confidence on the Chairman (opposite party No. 1) and requested the Subdivisional Officer, in the said resolution to take necessary action in the matter. The Vice-Chairman (Petitioner No. 1) sent the said resolution on 27-3-1985 to the Subdivisional Officer. On receipt of the same the Subdivisional Officer gave notice on 3-4-1985 for a meeting to be held at the office of the Panchayat Samiti on 15-4-1985 at 11 a.m. with a copy of the resolution dated 24-3-1985 indicating the subject of the notice to be a special sitting of the Samiti relating to the proposal of vote of no confidence against the Chairman. In the meeting held on 15-4-1985, a resolution recording want of confidence in the Chairman (opposite party No. 1) was passed. The Collector, Sambalpur on receipt of the resolution forthwith published the same on 17-4-1985. Accordingly opposite party No. 1 was deemed to have vacated the office.

3. Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application u/s 54-A of the Act on 20-4-1985 before the State Government for exercising the power of revision of the resolution dated 15-4-1985. After hearing the opposite party No. 1 and the Petitioners, the State Government allowed the application of opposite party No. 1 by order dated 21-6-1985 and quashed the resolution dated 15-4-1985. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioners have approached this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21-6-1985.

4. The revisional authority quashed the resolution on the grounds that the requisition to the Subdivisional Officer was not in accordance with law and in the absence of a seal in the notice given by the Subdivisional Officer, the opposite party No. 1 was misled and could not attend the meeting.

5. Section 46-B(2) of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed for passing a vote of no confidence by the members of the Panchayat Samiti. It does not provide for any proforma. Section 57 of the Act provides for making rules consistent with the provisions of the Act to carryall or any of the purposes of this Act and to prescribe forms for any matter for which they consider that a form should be provided. In exercise of this power, the State Government made a set of rules relating to removal of Chairman and Vice. Chairman from office. In Rule 3 the Collector was declared to be the authority to publish the resolution u/s 46-B(1) of the Act. The manner of publication of the resolution by the Collector has been provided under Rules 4 and 5. The State Government did not consider that a form would be necessary for the requisition to be sent to the Subdivisional Officer or for the proposed resolution along with such requisition or for the notice by the Subdivisional Officer. In the absence of rules or forms prescribed for the purpose, the requirement of Section 46-B(2) of the Act would be satisfied if they are substantially complied with.

6. The revisional authority has treated the forwarding letter of the Vice-Chairman dated 27-3-1985 to be the requisition and held it to be invalid in law as required number of members have not signed the same. This is clearly an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The resolution of the eleven members in their meeting is the requisition. The word 'requisition' has not been defined either under the Act or under the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937. Accordingly, the ordinary meaning in the context is to be accepted. The meaning of the word in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Reprinted Edition, 1968, is

Requiring, demand made esp. formal u