IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

AFR

W.P.(C) No.21068 of 2025

Nirupama Malik …. Petitioner

Mr. A. Rath, Advocate

-

-Versus

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties

Ms. B. Dash. ASC

Mr. A. Behera, Advocate for O.P. No.5

A N D

W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2025

Nirupama Malik …. Petitioner

Mr. A. Rath, Advocate

-

-Versus

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties

Ms. B. Dash. ASC

Mr. A. Behera, Advocate for O.P. No.5

CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING:26.08.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:29.11.2025

1. Both the writ petitioners are disposed of by a common judgment since, the cause of action to file the same is consequent upon issuance of a notice for vote of no

confidence against the petitioner.

2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 21^st January, 2025 issued by opposite party No.3 with respect to the no confidence motion initiated against her alleging the action to be in violation of the provisions of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rules framed thereunder, hence, to be declared as void ab initio, inasmuch as, when the members of the GP, who initiated such motion have incurred disqualification under Section 25(2) of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was duly elected as the Sarpanch of the concerned GP in the year, 2022 and has been serving in such capacity but has assailed the action of opposite party No.3 since the no confidence motion has been initiated against her. Briefly stated, the Naib Sarpanch and other Ward Members of the GP held a meeting on 8^th December, 2024 to propose a no confidence motion against the petitioner, who allegedly failed to discharge her duty as the Sarpanch by claiming that she is not holding the meetings regularly and also misutilizing the funds of the GP. Such other allegations having been made against the petitioner including the involvement of her husband in running the Panchayat, a resolution as per Annexure-1 was passed in the said meeting and it was followed by a requisition to opposite party No.3 dated 12^th December, 2024. Upon receiving the requisition, opposite party No.3 issued notice vide Annexure-3 for a meeting to be held for the motion. Such action vis-à-vis vote of no confidence is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is politically motivated and has nothing to do with the governance of the GP. According to the petitioner, the allegations against her particularly for not holding the meetings are false and exaggerated for the fact that she conducted Gram Sabha and Palli Sabha even after deliberate disruptions caused by some of the members of the GP having vested interest. In support of meeting held at the Gram Panchayat level, the petitioner refers to Annexure-4 series. It is also been denied by the petitioner that her husband is influencing the decision of the GP and causing disturbances in its administration claiming it to be a baseless allegation lacking material evidence with no official complaint or any formal proceeding ever initiated against her to substantiate the same. It is alleged by the petitioner that opposite party No.3 arbitrarily issued the impugned notice for the no confidence motion without conducting an impartial inquiry to verify the authenticity of the allegation and as such, the action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is claimed by the petitioner that an independent investigation was necessary to establish the allegations against her as the same are driven by personal grievances rather than genuine concern for the proper administration of the GP and also on account of political vendetta. The plea of the petitioner is that any member even a Sarpanch incurs disqualification under Section 25(3) of the Act in case, he fails to attend three consecutive ordinary meetings and if the petitioner is guilty of such default, it could have been brought to the notice of the authority concerned, namely, opposite party No.2 for an