Compliance with procedural laws in no-confidence motions under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act is essential, though timing of notice receipt versus issuance holds significance in evaluating valid participation.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-5 issued by opposite party No.4 in connection with a vote of no confidence initiated by opposite party Nos. 6 to 16 on the grounds inter alia that the same is arbitrary, illegal, without authority and contrary to the provisions envisaged under Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and to declare the proposed resolution dated 27^th January, 2025 i.e.Annexure-4 as having no sanction of law.

2. As pleaded on record, according to the petitioner, the election was held in the year 2022 and she was elected to the office of the Sarpanch of Gopinathpur GP in the district of Puri and ever since assumed office, has been performing her duties and responsibilities with sincerity. It is pleaded that at the GP in question consists of eleven Wards and out of that, ten Ward Members have been elected and for the rest one, none could be elected due to non-availability of ST candidates. The further pleading is that the petitioner received the notice i.e. Annexue-1 on 8^th March, 2025 from opposite party No.4 in terms of Section 24 (1) of the Act about a special meeting to be held on 21^st March, 2025 at 11 A.M. at a time when she was in hospital having undergone a bye-pass surgery. It is pleaded further that the said notice was sent to her without the copies of resolution and requisition, whereafter, she inquired about the same and during that time, received a caveat notice i.e. Annexure-2 from opposite party No.6, a Ward Member of Ward No. 9 and upon perusal of the same, she was made to understand that on 27^th January, 2025, a resolution for a motion of no confidence was passed and said to have communicated to opposite party No.4 by letter dated 3^rd February, 2025. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 27^th January, 2025, as per the information received, a meeting was held and continued for hours together and up to 12.30 P.M. ultimately leading to the passing of another resolution i.e. Annexure-3, hence, no such resolution for no confidence motion was ever passed, the reason being that there could not have been two meetings at the same point of time with the participation of the Ward Members, inasmuch as, the resolution i.e. Annexure-3 was passed in presence of the Government officials is more authentic and therefore, having any other meeting for the motion was not possible and hence, any such proceeding claimed to have been held is totally a falsehood.

3. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7426 of 2025 challenging the notice for non-compliance of Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act and was disposed of on 2^nd April, 2025 and it was disposed of with a direction to the requisitionists to provide a copy of the proposed resolution and requisition to opposite party No.4 therein as it was addressed to opposite party No.2 and upon receiving the same, the said authority shall do the needful. It has been further claimed that in view of the above order, opposite party No.4 issued notice dated 8^th April, 2025 and fixed the special meeting to be held on 28^th April, 2025 and it was accepted by the petitioner with objection. The pleading is that on the basis of the same resolution and requisition, opposite party No.4 proceeded to fix up the date for the motion without complying Section 24 of the Act, hence, the entire exercise for no confidence motion is vitiated. With the above pleading on record, the impug