The issuance of a notice for a no confidence motion must comply with statutory requirements, including accompanying resolutions; failure to show prejudice does not invalidate the process.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-1 issued by opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against him on the grounds inter alia that the same is in contravention of the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), hence, liable to be interferred with in the interest of justice.

2. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner received a notice from opposite party No.3 indicating therein about the Ward Members of the concerned GP including the Naib Sarpanch to have proposed a vote of no confidence against him with a resolution and the requisition with the date of special meeting fixed to 15^th January, 2025. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 was not accompanied with the enclosures, such as, the copies of the resolution and requisition dated 30^th November, 2024. It is claimed that upon receiving Annexure-1, the petitioner approached opposite party No.3 on 3^rd January, 2025 and submitted a letter stating therein that the enclosures not to have been sent along with it and since the same was received but without any receipt, it was sent by Registered Post on 4^th January, 2025. The further claim is that opposite party No.3 neither intimated the petitioner in response to the letter sent by Post nor supplied the copies of the proposed resolution dated 5^th December, 2024 and the requisition. The contention is that the no confidence motion against the petitioner without the enclosures to the notice as per Annexure-1 is in gross violation of Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act, hence, the entire exercise at the instance of the Ward Members and Naib Sarpanch with the decision of opposite party No.3 convening a Special Meeting for the said purpose stands vitiated.

3. On the contrary, State refuted the claim of the petitioner and by filling the counter affidavit, it is pleaded that the notice i.e. Annexure-1 was issued by opposite party No.3 in accordance with Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act. It is further pleaded that the copies of the proposed resolution and requisition were sent allowing with the notice to the petitioner and all concerned indicating therein the date fixed for the special meeting and therefore, the plea advanced by him is out rightly a falsehood.

4. Heard, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.5 to 13.

5. Perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder of the petitioner. Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 20 ^th February, 2025, the file maintained in the establishment of opposite part No.3 dealing with the no confidence motion was produced by Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State in course of hearing and the same is gone through to verify the claim of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-1 since was not accompanied with the proposed resolution and requisition, the petitioner approached opposite party No.3 and even demanded supply of the same, but it was of no avail. The submission of Mr. Pujari, learned counsel is that if the notice for no confidence motion was issued without the proposed resolution and requisition, as it is statutorily mandated, there is no compliance of Section 24 (2)(c) of the Act. For such non-compliance, the petitioner on 3^rd January, 2025 approached opposite party No.3 and submitted a letter claiming that the notice was not having the enclosu