Statutory requirements for No Confidence Motion must be strictly adhered to, including the notice being accompanied by copies of requisition and resolution, as established under the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J :

The Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat is in this Intra-Court appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 13.10.2025 whereby his W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025 has been negatived. In that petition, he had, in substance, called in question the proceedings of No Confidence mainly on the ground that the statutory notice was not accompanied by copies of requisition & proposed resolution.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argues that the No Confidence Motion is fraught with infirmity, inasmuch as the mandatory requirement of meeting notice being accompanied by copies of requisition & proposed resolution was not met and thus, there is a gross violation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. He presses into service a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal , 2025 (III) ILR-CUT-1221, in support of his contention.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents resists the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. She contends that the requirement is that the notice should be accompanied by copies of the requisition & proposed resolution; the mode of service pales into insignificance if it is otherwise demonstrated that the Sarpanch received notice & accompaniments from different sources; the postal parcel weighed 20 grams and admittedly it reached hands of the appellant; notice would weigh four or five grams and therefore, it should be presumed that the remainder of the weight was of its accompaniments. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. We have very carefully perused the original records, which learned AGA had secured on our direction and returned the same to her. There is evidentiary material, namely, the certificate of posting to vouch the contention that the notice of meeting sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has reached the hands of appellant; however, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to support the contention that the envelope sent by certificate of posting, had contained accompaniments of the notice, namely, copies of requisition & proposed resolution for No Confidence. This view is supported by what A.B. Majumder’s ‘Law Relating to Notices’ (8 ^th Edition) says. It also gains support from Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy , AIR 1918 PC 102 . On the basis of weight of the envelope sent through certificate of posting, one cannot hurriedly jump to the assumption that it contained notice and copies of requisition & proposed resolution. The letter relied upon by the learned AGA, mentioning service of all this being a document generated post commencement of litigation, does not earn much credence. This aspect has not been duly discussed in the right perspective in the impugned order.

4.2. Learned counsel for the appellant is more than justified in telling us that the Full Bench decision in Nabanita supra has held that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act providing for removal of Sarpanch/Naib Sarpanch are in the nature of law relating to election and therefore, the same have to be construed as mandatory. In the said decision, it is observed as under:

“(iv) As already mentioned, Sub-Section (2)(c) is clear & emphatic in prescribing the procedure for issuance of notice of No Confidence Motion. The structure is: Firstly, Notice should be a minimum of seven (7) days. Secondly, it should contain date, time & place of meeting. Thirdly, it should be accompani