Natural justice requires that elected members are given a proper opportunity to defend themselves in disqualification proceedings, and evidence must be thoroughly examined before declaring disqualification under relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned decision of opposite party No.1 as at Annexure-10 by order dated 27^th January, 2025 in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not legally tenable and hence, is liable to be interfered with and set at naught on the grounds inter alia that the principles of natural justice have not been followed.

2. The petitioners are the elected Ward Members of Belpal GP under Rajnagar Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kendrapara and have questioned the action and decision of opposite party No.1 in entertaining the application under Section 26 of the Odisha Grams Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) initiated at the behest of opposite party No.2, namely, Sarpanch of the GP as against whom vote of no confidence was proposed. It is pleaded on record by the petitioners that opposite party No.2 filed such an application alleging them to be disqualified for having not attended three consecutive meetings of the GP in view of Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and it was entertained by opposite party No.1 without adhering to the procedure prescribed thereunder and exercised jurisdiction most arbitrarily without any enquiry held as contemplated under law and finally passed the impugned order at Annexure-10 with the conclusion that all stand disqualified for having not attended the required number of meetings convened and held during a period of four months. It is pleaded on record that opposite party No.1 during and in course of hearing under Section 26 of the Act in G.P. Appeal Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2024 illegally stayed the no confidence motion proposed against opposite party No.2, which was in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him and such decision was interfered with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26251 of 2024 by order dated 14^th November, 2024 concluding that any such proceeding is independent of an action under Section 26 of the Act. According to the petitioners, after disposal of G.P. Appeal Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, opposite party No.1 without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and in utter disregard to the Court’s order dated 21 ^st January, 2025 in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 proceeded to dispose of G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 and declared the petitioners disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act.

3. The petitioners have been elected in the year 2022 and their tenure is to continue till March, 2027, however, it has been intervened by the orders in G.P. Appeal Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2024. In fact, in G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024, two of the Ward Members, who are the requisitionists for the vote of no confidence have been declared disqualified for having more than two children born after the cut-off date in view of Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. Such disqualification of both the Ward Members, namely, petitioner Nos.5 & 7 under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act is under challenge at present along with others with the allegation that they have not attended the meetings dated 29^th June, 2024, 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024. The decision of opposite party No.1 in G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 is not the subject matter herein. The impugned order at Annexure-10 relates to G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 for having declared the petitioners disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. According to the petitioners, such proceeding has been initiated to frustrate the no confidence moti