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 exist.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1.The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned notice dated 27^th January, 2025 as at Annexure-1 series issued in connection with the no confidence motion and the decision of the Sub-Collector, Jeypore, Koraput, namely, opposite party No.4 in fixing a special meeting on 12^th February, 2025 for the said purpose without serving copies of the resolution and requisition as required under Section 24 (2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that such an exercise is liable to be interferred with and set aside.

2. According to the petitioner, the election to the office of the Sarpanch was held in the year, 2022 and he got elected with the mandate of the voters by a thumping majority and since then, discharging duties and obligations with utmost sincerity and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is pleaded that the concerned GP represented by the petitioner as Sarpanch consists of eleven Ward Members and the cause of action is on account of issuance of notice i.e. Annexure-1 series. The further pleading on record is that opposite party No.4 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act issued such notice and fixed the meeting to be held on 12^th February, 2025 for the no confidence motion, which was duly accepted by the petitioner on 29^th January, 2025 with an objection that it did not accompany the copies of the resolution and requisition. As per the petitioner, the no confidence motion is indeed a counterblast to the demand disqualifying ineligible members of the GP and while pleading so, the documents as at Annexure-2 series are referred to. With the claim that the action is not in terms of the provisions the Act and by not complying the mandatory requirements stipulated in (2) of the Act, the issuance of notice as per Annexure-1 is challenged and also the entire proceeding and to declare the same as illegal and the action to be without authority.

3. On the contrary, opposite party Nos.6 to 13 filed the counter and it is pleaded that due to the misconduct of the petitioner and allegation against her, all the Ward Members including the Naib Sarpanch had been to the office of opposite party Nos.2 to 5 to bring it to their notice but since no action was taken, an emergency meeting was held for the no confidence motion on 11^th January, 2025 and ultimately, they passed the resolution with a request to opposite party No.4 for action and accordingly, the date for the special meeting was fixed. It is also pleaded that soon after the receipt of the resolution at Annexure-A/1 of the counter, opposite party No.4 communicated the same to opposite party No.2 as required under law and issued notice to the petitioner with a request to opposite party No.5 for its publication in the notice boards of the Block office and Gram Panchayat fixing the date and time with intimation to all to remain present for the meeting and in such view of the matter, no illegality has been committed.

4. According to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, there have been no lapses in complying Section 24 of the Act. It is stated that a copy of the resolution dated 11^th January, 2025 was received with the signatures of the eight Ward Members as per Annexure-A/2 along with a requisition on 13^th January, 2025 with a request for initiation of motion. A copy of the requisition is at Annexure- B/2. It is pleaded that (1) of the Act stipulates that 2/3^rd of the total members to be present at the meeting for the purpose of resolution and since such a resolution was passed and it was recei