AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26726 of 2024 Jayaram Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate -

-Versus State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate for O.P. No.5 Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate for O.P. Nos.8, 11 & 15 CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.02.2025

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the initiation of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on the basis of the requisition as at Annexure-1 on the grounds inter alia that the statutory requirement of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has not been complied with, hence, liable to be quashed.

2. In fact, notice dated 14^th October, 2024 was issued by opposite party No.3 to convene a special meeting vis-a-vis vote of no confidence against the petitioner after receiving the requisition from opposite party Nos.5 to 17. The pleading of the petitioner is that such notice is contrary to law and without due compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, inasmuch as, it was signed just 15 days prior to the date fixed for the meeting and the same was received by him on 18^th October, 2024, as a result of which, there was no sufficient time to convince the Ward Members against the proposed resolution. The contention is that the prescribed period of 15 days as prescribed under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the same by the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that immediately after the recent general election, opposite party No.5, who is the Naib Sarpanch connived with the dissenting Ward Members of the GP and moved for the vote of no confidence despite the fact that since last three years, he has been discharging his official duties in accordance with law without a single allegation levelled against him during the tenure. It is further pleaded that on 22^nd August, 2024, opposite party Nos.5 to 17, out of 19 Ward Members, sent the requisition to opposite party No.3 with a request to the latter to convene a meeting and the same was signed by them. The requisition and resolution, as per the petitioner, alleged that he is involved in corrupt practices, hence, the no confidence motion when the notice reveals that an enquiry against him for misappropriation of Govt. fund received under MGNREGA is still on. It is claimed by the petitioner that no such meeting was held before sending the requisition to opposite party No.3 as required under law, hence, the same in not valid. It is further claimed that an earlier action for no confidence motion was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23054 of 2024 and this Court intervened on the ground that period as contemplated in Section 24(4) of the Act was not over. It is alleged that opposite party No.5, a politically influential person, managed to put pressure on opposite party No.3 and convinced the latter to once again call for the no confidence motion against him under Section 24 of the Act and followed by issuance of notice on 14^th October, 2024 with the meeting to be held on 30^th October, 2024. It is lastly pleaded by the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of law for a clear 15 days fixed before such meeting is held.

3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State, Mr. Samal, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 and Mr. Bose, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.8, 11 and 15.

4. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was issued though signed on 14^th October, 2024 and dispatched on 15^th October, 2024 and was received by the petitioner on 18^th October, 2024, hence, Section 24(2)(c) of the Act is failed to be complied with. Referring to the decision in Nilambar Majhi Vrs. Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Panchayat Raj Department and others 2005(II) OLR 659, Mr. Mishra, learned counse