Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Subhra Panda – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing issuance of the impugned notice dated 22nd September, 2025 by opposite party No.3 as per Annexure-1 series and for that matter, the resolution dated 10th September, 2025 followed by requisition dated 12th 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 10th 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 12th September, 2025, which has been acted upon by opposite party No.3 fixi
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 ju....
Compliance with procedural laws in no-confidence motions under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act is essential, though timing of notice receipt versus issuance holds significance in evaluating valid par....
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.
The issuance of a notice for a no confidence motion must comply with statutory requirements, including accompanying resolutions; failure to show prejudice does not invalidate the process.
The Collector is obligated to convene a meeting forthwith upon receipt of a valid requisition for a no-confidence motion, without examining the veracity of the allegations.
No obligation on the Collector to verify allegations in no-confidence requisition; statutory compliance is sufficient.
The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion does not invalidate the motion if it is adopted by the requisite majority, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
