Members of Panchayat Samiti, including MLAs and MPs, possess the right to vote in no confidence motions, as per Section 18(2) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, contrary to any informal directives limiting their participation.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are disposed of by the following judgment since arising out of a common cause of action involving the parties.

2. W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025: Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned notices dated 11^th July, 2025 and 15^th July, 2025 issued by the learned Sub-Collector, Gunupur, namely, opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion proposed for removal of opposite party No.6, the Chairman of the concerned Panchayat Samiti with initiation of an action under Section 46 -B of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that there is non-compliance of -B(2)(c) and (f) thereof for him having not been served with the resolution and requisition therewith.

3. W.P.(C) No.20122 of 2025: Present writ petition is filed by the Chairman, Gudari Panchayat Samiti questioning the legality of the notices under challenge issued at the behest of opposite party No.3, namely, Sub-Collector, Gunupur for the vote of no confidence under Section 46 -B of the Act on the premise that the service of notice is defective and it has not been accompanied with the resolution and requisition and the same is invalid in not providing seven clear days’ notice and therefore, the entire exercise has been vitiated and hence, such action is liable to be quashed.

4. The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is a member of Karlaghati GP and assumed office in after an election held and having received thumping majority therein and by claiming so, it is pleaded on record that the action initiated under Section 46 -B of the Act is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that a date was fixed for the motion to be held but it was adjourned but such an adjournment is not permissible in view of -B(2)(f) of the Act and not only that, the petitioner was not served with copies of the resolution and requisition. It is also pleaded that there has been no seven days’ prior notice before the motion to be held as the same is required under law, hence, therefore, the learned Sub-Collector, Gunupur (opposite party No.3) did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and therefore, the impugned notices dated 11^th July, 2025 and 15^th July, 2025 are outrightly invalid. Apart from the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, such action under -B of the Act is questioned in W.P.(C) No.23217 of 2025, wherein, the petitioner is an elected MLA by pleading that he has a right to participate and vote during the motion but could not be able to do so since there has been no notice issued and for having no prior intimation about the same and it was also on account of him being not available at the relevant point of time since had been to his constituency for meetings as a Member of the Standing Committee-V, 2025-26 of the Odisha Legislative Assembly and also on a visit to Angul and Keonjhar. The pleading is that in view of the letter of the Government dated 30^th September, 2009 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department meetings of the Panchayat Samiti are not to be convened during the Assembly/Parliament Sessions in order to facilitate the MLAs and MPs to attend and to take part in the deliberations of such meetings and therefore, opposite party No.3 could not have fixed the date for the motion on 24^th July, 2025 as one of the MPs and a member having a right to vote could not remain present which was also duly intimated shortly after. With the above pleadings on record, the petitioners questioned the decis