Disqualification of a Sarpanch under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act for holding a contractor license implicates procedural compliance with provisions concerning natural justice and the right to respond adequately to allegations.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 21^st February, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 26 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by opposite party No.2 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority and to allow her to work as Sarpanch of Amankuda Grama Panchayat (GP) and also the order dated 10^th March, 2025 vide Annexure-29 of opposite party No.4 on the grounds inter alia that such an action is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set at naught in the interest of justice.

2. The election to the post of Sarpanch of the GP was held in the year 2022 and therein, the petitioner got elected and assumed the office on 11^th March, 2022. It is pleaded on record that petitioner had completed more than two years as Sarpanch of the GP but by order dated 21^st February, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1, she was declared disqualified by opposite party No.2 exercising power under Section 26(2) of the Act without providing her reasonable opportunity to defend the proceeding. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 directed such disqualification by order dated 25^th September, 2024 vide Annexure-2 but the proceeding was conducted in a casual manner and it was on the allegation that she is a registered contractor under the OPWD Act and there was a subsisting contract which invited the disqualification.

2.1. In that connection, a show cause notice dated 21^st August, 2024 as at Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioner and in response to the same, she submitted a reply on 24^th August, 2024 stating therein about the existence of the license but without any subsisting contract. The said show cause was submitted as per Annexure-4, as further pleaded. It is alleged that without considering the reply, opposite party No.2 issued a second show cause notice dated 11^th September, 2024 i.e. Annexure-5. Irrespective of the above, it is pleaded that the petitioner approached opposite party No.2 on 14^th September, 2024 subsequent to Annexure-5 and requested 15 days’ time to respond to the same and moved an application for time vide Annexure-6 but it was followed by the order of disqualification at Annexure-2, as a result of which, W.P.(C) No.24866 of 2024 was filed, which was disposed of on 4^th October, 2024 for reconsideration of the decision, in accordance with the directions issued therein.

2.2. After the disqualification order at Annexure-2 was set aside allowing her to submit a detailed reply within the stipulated period but before that, request for supply of a copy of the report of the Chief Construction Engineer, which was relied on and referred to earlier, was made. The petitioner intimated the same to opposite party No.2 and waited till 9^th November, 2024 to receive a copy of the said report, however, direction to supply it was not complied with, nevertheless, she filed a reply on 23^rd October, 2024 denying the allegation levelled against her and once again requested to supply the relevant documents to file a response. According to the petitioner, a copy of the report of the Chief Construction Engineer dated 30^th August, 2024 was finally supplied to her on 23^rd October, 2024 with a notice issued and served on her on 29^th October, 2024 and in response thereto, a further request was made to supply certain documents so as to rebut the allegation and also to cross-examine the officials and in anticipation of the same, she had approached o