The court affirmed that substantive compliance with the procedural requirements of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, overshadowing minor technical lapses, upholds the validity of no-confidence motions.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant writ appeal arises from a judgment dated 13^th October, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in dismissing the writ petition bearing WP(C) No.29708 of 2024 having held that the points raised in the writ petition as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner are not justified and/or sustainable in the eye of law.

2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant was elected as Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat in the month of February, 2022 and suffered the motion of no confidence against him by the majority of the members of the Grama Panchayat. The proceeding was initiated by the competent authority as mandated under Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (for short, “the OGP Act”) and date was fixed for counting the votes of the elected members of the Grama Panchayat whether the motion of no confidence succeeds or not. The next date is fixed day-after- tomorrow (26^th November, 2025). However, the writ petition was filed challenging not only the requisition but also the notice issued by the competent authority under sub-section (2) and meeting was convened under sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the OGP Act on multiple grounds including that the time limit between the requisition and the proposed resolution, as mandated therein, has not been strictly adhered to. It is the specific stand of the appellant that the procedures provided under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the OGP Act has not been followed. Apart from the same, a further plea was taken that the requisition and/or the meeting to be convened on the basis thereof falls within the mischief period as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the OGP Act and, therefore, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. After considering the stand taken by the appellant, the Single Bench held that the requisition made by the majority of the members of the Grama Panchayat with regard to no confidence against the appellant cannot be invalidated. The notice having received by him, the clear fifteen days cannot be said to be causing any prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the process is saved by Section 24(2)(e) of the OGP Act.

4. Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his usual manner forcefully argued and vociferously submitted before us that the Single Bench has not considered the case in proper perspective and proceeded on the basis of the submission advanced by the other side. According to him, the requisition was in fact made on 8^th February, 2024, which being the foundation for issuance of the notice for convening the meeting comes within the mischief period of two years and six months and in view of a complete embargo created under Section 24(4) of the OGP Act, the entire exercise taken by the competent authority is per se illegal.

4.1. He arduously submits that the Court did not take into consideration the spirit of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the OGP Act, which provides that no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by one-third of the total members of the Grama Panchayat which in fact was made in the month of the February, 2024 and not in the month of September, 2024 as it was signed by only one member and, therefore, it is not in conformity with the said provision. He, thus, submits that the Single Bench has not considered the case in proper perspective, more particularly the implication of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the OGP Act and, therefore, warrants interference in the instant appeal.

4.2. As a last gasping resort, he submits that though the hearing of the impugned judgment was conc