Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. PATTANAIK
Ramalata Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges notice for no confidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state argues notice complied with legal requirements. (Para 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court reviews evidence regarding notice compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 4. compliance with section 24(2)(c) is critical in no confidence motion. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court dismisses petition and vacates interim order. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
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 15th January, 2025. The contention of the petitioner is
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.
The court affirmed that compliance with statutory notice provisions in a no confidence motion was sufficient, and challenges based on alleged deficiencies or political motives were unsubstantiated.
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 par....
Fifteen days notice for a no confidence motion is mandatory under Section 24(2)(c), but mode of service is directory; lack of prejudice can validate proceedings even if procedural irregularities exis....
The mandatory and directory requirements of the notice under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 must be fulfilled for the validity of a No Confidence Motion meeting.
The court confirmed that the notice for a No Confidence Motion must comply with statutory requirements; however, procedural safeguards do not invalidate proceedings if legislative intent is met.
Procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act are mandatory for no-confidence motions; late notice receipt does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
Procedural compliance under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is mandatory; deviations may invalidate proceedings. The court confirmed that the notice for No Confidence Motion adhered to st....
The court ruled that compliance with procedural safeguards under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is critical for no-confidence motions, affirming that minor deviations do not invalidate democrati....
Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is crucial, but minor deviations that do not demonstrate prejudice may not invalidate no-confidence proceedings....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
