The court affirmed the validity of a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch despite claims of procedural impropriety, ruling that the absence of quorum due to Ward Members' non-attendance justified the motion.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the opposite parties and the show cause issued in connection with a no confidence motion initiated against him being the Sarpanch of Kendrikela GP under Bonaigarh Block in the district of Sundargarh as at Annexure-6 with respect to the enquiry report dated 19^th February, 2025 and the impugned order dated 11^th April, 2025 vide Annexure-7 and for a direction to hold an impartial enquiry vis-à-vis absence of the Ward Members of the GP duly communicated to opposite party No.4 by letters dated 5^th October 2024 and 2^nd November, 2024 at Annexure-2 series and to take appropriate action in accordance with law but within a reasonable period of time as stipulated by this Court on the grounds stated.

2. According to the pleading on record, the petitioner and fourteen other Ward Members were elected to the GP. The first Annual General Meeting of the GP was held on 11^th March, 2022. It is pleaded that although initially the Ward Members attended the monthly meetings of the GP, however, their attendance fell short during the first part of the year 2023 and thereafter, from July, 2023, inasmuch as, not more than three Ward Members attended the monthly meetings although notices were issued and served on them through e-Panchayat Sabha etc. For them having continuously failed to remain present, it affected the decision of the GP and resulted in stagnation of the developmental works of the Panchayat and in that connection, it is also pleaded that opposite party No.4 was approached alleging such conduct of the Naib Sarpanch and other members at the monthly meetings with intimation to him by a letter dated 5^th October, 2024 and thereafter, on 2^nd November, 2024, copies of which are at Annexure-2 series and also requested to remove the Ward Members from the GP for their continued default in attending the sittings and in that connection, even a meeting was conducted in relation to the complaints received. It is further pleaded that the Ward Members, in the meantime, approached opposite party No.3 for a no confidence motion against the petitioner but pursuant to the complaints from him about their actions in not attending the monthly meeting, a detailed report was received and the same highlighted upon the fact that though the monthly meetings were conducted regularly with notices sent, the Ward Members did not attend the same, due to which, there was no quorum for the meetings. A copy of the report as at Annexure-5 series is referred to with the pleading that the absence of Ward Members during the monthly meetings for the period was established. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted to look into the complaints levelled against the petitioner and for the no confidence motion by the Ward Members. It has been alleged that the Committee instead of conducting such an enquiry and without taking into account the enquiry report of opposite party No.4 dated 21^st December, 2024 held that notices were not served as per the provisions of Odisha Panchayat Rules, 2014 and the Rules of Business and also recommended that opposite party No.3 is competent to issue notice on no confidence motion as per the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Odisha Gram Panchayat Rules, 2014. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the enquiry report of the Committee as at Annexure-6, opposite party No.3 issued notice dated 11^th April, 2025 vide Annexure-7 to convene the special meeting for the motion. The details of the exercise which were undertaken for the purpose of holding the meetings on monthly basis, as according to the petitioner, said to have been