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.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the impugned notice dated 17^th October, 2024 as at Annexure-3 issued by opposite party No.3 in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against her on the grounds inter alia that the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Jarangloi GP and opposite party No.3 issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 for the vote of no confidence proposed against her. It is pleaded on record that ever since elected as the Sarpanch of the GP, the petitioner has been successfully discharging duty after assumption of the charge consequent upon issuance of notification dated 2^nd March, 2022 at Annexure-2. The further pleading is that the GP in question under Bargaon Panchayat in District of Sundargarh consists of 13 Wards and the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch with a huge margin of vote polled and while continuing as such, she received Annexure-3 from opposite party No.3 regarding the special meeting to be held on 5^th November, 2024 for considering the no confidence motion against her. It is the claim of the petitioner that the notice in question was received by her indicating therein about a copy of the requisition to have been enclosed but no such enclosure was found and that apart, no official seal was affixed to the same. It is alleged that the proposed motion is an outcome of political vengeance and collective conspiracy of some of the Ward Members. The further claim is that vote of no confidence may be initiated against a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, as the case may be, in accordance with Section 24 of the Act which stipulates that such a motion may be moved by majority of the members not less than 1/3^rd of the total membership having rights to vote followed by a requisition and the same is a statutory mandate and in the case at hand, it has not taken place as per law, hence, the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3 is invalid. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not receive a copy of the resolution with the notice. It is pleaded that the minutes of the meeting dated 5^th November, 2024 cannot be said as the proposed resolution for the purpose of vote of no confidence. The further claim is that the petitioner learnt about the requisition not to have been drawn at the office of the GP signed by the PEO and sent to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.5 and that apart, under the threat of the Naib Sarpanch, the Ward Members put their signatures on the resolution and besides that, opposite party No.3 without any enquiry conducted on the allegations levelled against her issued the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3, hence, such an exercise and action is per se illegal. Narrating other facts pleaded by the petitioner regarding the duties and functions discharged by her as the Sarpanch of the GP with all sincerity and diligence, the impugned action for the no confidence motion against her has been questioned stating further that an elected representative is not to be unseated from the office in such manner and in case, the no confidence motion is allowed to be held, it would affect the democratic functions of the GP, hence, deserves to nipped at the bud.

3. On the contrary, opposite