A no-confidence motion can proceed in the absence of prescribed procedural rules unless formally challenged. Disqualifications must be established through due process before they impede participation.

ORDER :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 15 and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned notice dated 7^th April, 2025 as at Annexure-3 issued by opposite party No.4 in connection with a no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 2^nd May, 2025 on the grounds stated therein.

3. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire exercise is vitiated since no rules of procedure is in place as is required in terms of Section 24(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The submission is that conduct of business dealing with meeting in terms of Section 24(1) of the Act requires a procedure, which is not prescribed and therefore, the exercise for the motion is to fall flat. It is further submitted that some of the Ward Members stand disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the requisition received by opposite party No.4 is not a valid one, hence, it could not have been acted upon for the no confidence motion. Furthermore, opposite party No.4 could not have given effect to the result of the motion in view of the Court’s interim order dated 29^th April, 2025 in I.A. No.6904 of 2025. The submission is that the impugned action, as a result, violates Article 14 and also Article 243-G of the Constitution of India besides for not abiding to the principles of natural justice. The contention is that in absence of a procedure prescribed by the Government, the one adopted by opposite party No.4 is illegal and in support of such plea, Mr. Dalai, learned counsel cited a case law in Taylor Vrs. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426. The submission is that law prescribes a particular procedure to be followed, one has to follow the same that way only. Relying upon another decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, it is contended that the action initiated under Section 24(1) of the Act is in violation of sub-section (2) thereof and therefore, any such motion held on the date fixed is nonest in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State would submit that Section 24(2) of the Act stipulates that in the convening of the meeting under sub section(1) and conduct of business as such, the State Government may prescribe and in absence of the same, the usual procedure followed for other meetings is to be adhered to and therefore, it cannot said that opposite party No.4 in any way committed illegality. The submission is that upon receiving the requisition, opposite party No.4 in normal course of things by following the procedure prescribed for other meetings fixed the date for the motion and accordingly, the provisions of sub-section (2) have been complied with and therefore, the plea of the petitioner and submission of Mr. Dalei, learned counsel in that regard is entirely misconceived. The further submission is that even though, there has been disqualification proceedings, it is not to stand as a bar, for the reason that all such members are the valid members on the date the resolution and requisition submitted and for that, a reference under Section 26(3) of the Act is made. The contention of Mr. Ray, learned AGA is that a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch or any of the member of the Gram Panchayat, if has been disqualified by a decision as per and in terms of Section 26 thereof, he shall be deemed to have vacated the office and till the date of such publication, the member shall be entitled to act as if there was no disqualification attached.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private o