A no-confidence motion against a municipal Vice-Chairperson is valid without the necessity of specific reasons in the resolution, and adherence to statutory notice requirements fulfills procedural justice.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing issuance of the impugned notice dated 22^nd September, 2025 by opposite party No.3 as per Annexure-1 series and for that matter, the resolution dated 10^th September, 2025 followed by requisition dated 12^th September, 2025 received from opposite party Nos.4 to 22 on the grounds inter alia that the initiation of the no-confidence motion against her is violative of the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), hence, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and quashed in the interest of justice.

2. According to the petitioner, the resolution from opposite party Nos.4 to 22 dated 10^th September, 2025 under Section 54 of the Act is arbitrary and illegal and thereby the decision to go for a vote of no-confidence against her cannot be sustained in law. It is further pleaded that the motion and decision in respect thereof are whimsical and blatantly illegal and the resolution is without any reason followed by the requisition dated 12^th September, 2025, which has been acted upon by opposite party No.3 fixing a date for the special meeting, inasmuch as, due procedure has not been followed in accordance with Section 54 of the Act and also the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Rules, 1953 (in short ‘the Rules’). With the above pleading on record, the very initiation of the vote for no-confidence against the petitioner has been questioned as without having the sanction of law.

3. The election of the Municipality was held for the term 2022-2027 with the election of the Chairman and twenty- four Councilors from each Ward. Upon assumption of office by the elected Councilors of Rayagada Municipality, the petitioner was chosen as the Vice-Chairperson, whereafter, she with all sincerity and diligence claimed to have discharged her duties and responsibilities in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that a faction of the Councilors of the Municipality, namely, opposite party Nos.4 to 22 led by a local leader and so-called financer for them regularly in connivance with each other, made attempts to get tenders awarded to their favoured candidates illegally and frequently interrupted the meetings of the Municipality. In spite of all such attempts by the Councilors, it is pleaded by the petitioner that she discharged responsibility to the best of her capability and while the matter stood, the local leader, who recently resigned from a political party, in order to have control over the functioning of the Municipality, influenced and coerced the Councilors to move a motion of no confidence, as she was the only one, who refused to function under his command. It is further alleged that the said leader in order to eliminate the petitioner and gain control over the Municipality successfully threatened and coerced and manipulated opposite party Nos.4 to 22 to bring the motion against her and accordingly, a meeting was called to discuss thereon, which was attended by nineteen Councilors and all of them unilaterally voted to move the resolution for want of confidence against her. Upon such resolution passed and on receiving requisition, opposite party No.3 issued the motion notice vide Annexure-1 series fixing the date of the special meeting to be held on 9^th October, 2025 and subsequent thereto, opposite party Nos.4 to 22 participated therein. As pe