IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.25636 of 2025 Sulochana Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. L. Pradhan, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate for the Intervener CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

16.12.2025 Order No.

09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice as at Annexure-3 dated 20^th August, 2025 issued in connection with no confidence motion scheduled to be held on 25^th September, 2025 received from opposite party No.4 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not legally tenable for having not complied with the requirements of Sections 24(2)(a) and 24(4) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not served with the resolution and requisition accompanied with the impugned notice i.e. Annexure-3, hence, there is non-compliance of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. The further submission is that the motion could not have been initiated against the petitioner, who is in-charge of Sarpanch and the same is not in consonance with Section 24(4) of the Act having been initiated before expiry of two years and six months. That apart, the entire exercise at the behest of opposite party No.4 is challenged referring to a decision of larger Bench of this Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra Vrs. Collector, Kandhmal & another in W.A. No. 1367 of 2025 dated 29^th November, 2025 with the submission that when there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, the impugned notice dated 25^th August, 2025 at Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in law.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that opposite party No.4 has issued the impugned notice at Annexure-3 upon receiving the requisition. The further submission is that the proposed resolution and requisition were sent along with the notice i.e. Annexure-3. Referring to the counter affidavit as at flag-G, it is submitted that the notice was issued and served on the petitioner personally and that such notice was sent with copies of the resolution and requisition revealed from Annexure-B/5. Further referring to Annexure-F/5 to the counter, it is submitted that the petitioner has received such notice on 6^th September, 2025 long before the motion was held on 29^th September, 2025 and hence, there is substantial compliance. The other ground with reference to Section 24(4) of the Act is concerned, in reply to the same, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that the petitioner has been holding the post of Naib Sarpanch for nearly three years hence, the plea of the petitioner alleging that the motion has been held before expiry of two years and six months is misconceived. With such submission as above, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC pleads that the impugned notice has been issued by opposite party No.4 as per and in accordance with law and hence, not to be interfered with.

5. In course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from any such notice issued by opposite party No.4, there is a need for compliance of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act. The submission is that the notice was also to be sent by post under certificate of posting with a copy thereof published at least seven days before motion to be held. In reply to the above, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State submits that such compliance has taken place and in any case, a proceeding for the meeting is not invalidated merely on such ground that the notice has not been received by any member of GP.

6. In so far as the decision in Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra) is concerned, the legal effect of Section 24(2)(a) to (e) of the Act has been considered with the conclusion reached at directing the matter to be placed before the Roster Bench for consideration. The Court is of the view that ir