WA/525/2026 of SATYABHAMA DEI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 July 2026

J U D G M E N T

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 1st July, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.-

1. Challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No.23138 of 2025 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this intra-Court Appeal.

2. Undeniably, the appellant was the elected Sarpanch and approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the notice issued by the Sub-

Collector, Khurda as it does not conform to the mandate of Section 24 (2) (c) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). At the very outset, we must record that despite this notice dated 08.08.2025 issued by the Sub- Collector, Khurda being the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, little digression has been made at the time of argument in taking us to several provisions of the Act, which in our opinion, may not be relevant to answer the issues involved herein.

3. The invalidation of the said notice is premised on a disclosure of 17 names which according to the said authority have taken a resolution and made a requisition signifying no confidence on the Sarpanch, i.e., the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant furthered his contention to the extent that the requisition and/or proposed resolution appended to the said notice does not reveal all the names as disclosed in the said notice and for such anomaly and/or discrepancies having perceived therefrom, such notice is per se illegal and any action taken thereupon is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, the State took a plea that the names disclosed in the said notice is mere an inadvertent mistake which cannot be equated with a mala fide intention. It is further contended that the language used in Section 24 of the said Act does not postulate naming of the persons who have sent the requisition and/or proposed resolution, and, therefore, the incorporation of such name cannot bring a fatal consequence, more particularly when the other conditions enshrined in the statutory provisions have been strictly followed. It is a specific case made out by the State that the names of the members of the Grama Panchayat who are 12 in numbers are reflected in the said notice along with the other members who did not take such resolution nor in the proposed requisition, and, therefore it would not be proper on the part of the Court to declare such notice contrary to the statutory provisions.

5. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts emanating from the record, the respective counsels advanced their argument reiterating their stand so taken in the pleading.

6. Mr.Dalai, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant fervently submitted that Section 24 (2) (c) of the Act mandates the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisition to fix the date, time and place of meeting by giving a notice to all members holding Office on the date of such notice and the same must be accompanied by a copy of the requisition and/or proposed resolution. He further submits that it is imperative on the part of the said authority to follow a clear 15 days period between the issuance of the notice and the proposed date of meeting. According to him, if the requisition and/or proposed resolution is inconsistent with the content of the notice issued by the said competent authority, it does not fulfil the requirement of the said Section and at best the notice can be invalidated on such score. He further submits that the conditions incorporated in Section 24 (2) of the Act has to be read stringently as the same is declared as mandatory by a Special Bench in a recent judgment delivered in the case of Nabanita Kapat Patra Vs. Collector, Kandhamal and another reported in 2025 (III) ILR-CUT-1221. He, thus submits that the names disclosed in the said notice which does not appear from the proposed resolution and/or requisition render the said notice invalid and not in consonance with the statutory provision. Lastly, he submits that the appellant approached this

Court immediately upon receipt of the notice being the subject matter of the writ petition and, therefore, there is no delay and laches which can be attributed to his conduct.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Swain, the learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that there is no requirement in the said statutory provision to disclose the names of the persons, who have sent the requisition and/or proposed resolution under Section 24 (2) (c) of the said Act, and, therefore, any bona fide mistake does not render the said notice illegal, infirm and/or invalid. He further submits that if the requirement of the said statutory provision is evident from the said notice, the Court should stay away from interfering therewith. He strenuously relied upon the finding of the Single Bench impugned in the instant appeal where it has been held that once 12 members out of 17 elected members have passed resolution and submitted requisition, it conforms to the statutory provision and percolated their decision of no confidence against the petitioner. The disclosure of the other names cannot be said to be fatal. He arduously submits that in absence of any preventive order/restraint order during pendency of the writ petition, the meeting was held and 14 out of 16 members have voted against the appellant, and, therefore, the no confidence motion stood passed. The muster of majoritarian view is to be accepted in a democratic polity. He thus submits that the order of the Single Bench is not infirm, illegal and/or susceptible to be interfered in the instant appeal.

8. On the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions raised before us and on the factual matrix adumbrated succinctly herein before the moot question involved in the instant writ appeal is whether a disclosure of the names of the members of the Gram Panchayat which do not tally with the names appended on the proposed resolution and/or requisition shall invalidate the notice per se when the other conditions enshrined in the statutory provisions are strictly adhered to.

9. In pursuit of deciding the aforesaid point, it would be profitable to quote the provisions contained in Section 24 of the said Act which runs thus: “24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib- Sarpanch -

(1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, regarding want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib- Sarpanch the resolution shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolution publish the same on his notice- board and with effect from the date of such publication the member holding the office of Sarpanch or the Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated such office.

(2) In convening a meeting under Sub-section (1) and in the conduct of business at such meeting the procedure shall be in accordance with such rules, as may be prescribed, subject however to the following provisions, namely :

(a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting; (b) the requisition shall be addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer;

(c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisition shall fix the date, hour and place of such meeting and give notice of the same to all the members holding office on the date of such notice along with a copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed; (d) the aforesaid notice shall be sent by post under certificate of posting and a copy thereof shall be published at least seven days prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice-board of the Samiti; (e) the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that the notice has not been received by any member; (f) the Sub-Divisional Officer or if he is unable to attend, any Gazetted Officer specially authorised by him in that behalf shall preside over, conduct and regulate the proceedings of the meeting; (g) the voting at all such meetings shall be by secret ballot; (h) no such meeting shall stand adjourned to a subsequent date and no item of business other than the resolution for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be taken up for consideration at the meeting;

(i) if the number of members present at the meeting is less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, the resolution shall stand annulled;

(j) if the resolution is passed at the meeting supported by the majority as specified in Sub-section (1) the Presiding Officer shall immediately forward the same in original along with the record of the proceedings to the Collector who shall forthwith publish the resolution in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1); and

(k) where any Gazetted Officer presides at the meeting he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Clause (j), also send a copy of the resolution to the Sub-divisional Officer for information and such action as may be necessary.

(3) When a meeting has been held in pursuance of Sub- section (2) for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, no fresh requisition for a meeting shall be maintainable- (a) in cases falling under Clauses (i) and (j) of the said sub-section or where the resolution is defeated after being considered at the meeting so held, before the expiry of one year from the date of such meeting; or (b) where the notification calling for general election to the Grama Panchayat has already been published under or in pursuance of Section 12.

(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (3) no requisition under Sub-section (2) shall be maintainable in the case of a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, before the expiry of [two years and six months] from the date on which such Sarpanch or Naib- Sarpanch enters office: Provided that all requisitions received under Sub-section

(2) prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 1993, in which no meeting for recording want of confidence has been held by the said date, shall stand abated. Explanation - The expression "total membership of the Grama Panchayat" shall refer to the total number of members specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 10 together with the number of members, if any, actually holding office at the relevant date in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of the said section.”

10. It is manifest from the meaningful reading of various sub- sections incorporated under Section 24 of the Act that Sub- section (1) becomes activated after the compliance of the procedures provided under Sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section

(2) of Section 24 of the Act, which has taken a prime seat of interpretation is a centre of debate as both the parties are not ad idem in interpreting the same. The said provision provides that the meeting under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 should be conducted by following the procedures as may be prescribed subject, however, to the other conditions, which finds place in the form of clauses (a) to (k) thereof. It is an admitted position that there is no procedure so prescribed as of now and the conditions stipulated in the aforementioned Clauses are followed rigorously by the competent authority while convening the meeting or proceeding to convene the meeting. There are catena of decisions rendered by this Court where the validity of the notice and/or meeting were raised and it has been a uniform view that if such notice does not conform to the conditions imposed in the form of clauses, the same is illegal and any action taken thereupon shall fall consequentially. It is a consistent view that such conditions are mandatory and any infraction would render the action taken by the statutory authority liable to be struck down.

11. The Division Bench of this Court, (of which one of us) decided a case relating to Pramod Kumar Sahu vrs. State of Odisha, (W.A. No.3473 of 2024 disposed of vided order dated 15.04.2025, wherein it was held that the expression ‘copy of the resolution’ appearing in the said statutory provision has to be understood in the perspective of the object and purpose underlying the incorporation thereof in the statutory book and any interpretation which would frustrate the same should be eschewed. It was further held that the provision relating to removal of a Sarpanch as more than 1/3rd members of the Grama Panchayat have adopted no confidence motion, if the same is conveyed clearly and explicitly, there is no necessity of separate proposed resolution and/or requisition, if any one of it is annexed to the notice. It was subsequently noticed that the said judgment runs counter to the earlier judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the matter was referred to a Larger Bench by us. The Larger Bench answered such issues in Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra) in holding that clause (c) of Sub- section (2) of Section 24 makes it imperative to include a copy of the requisition and the copy of the proposed resolution, which are separate and distinct and in the event the notice lacks any one of such documents, such notice is not in conformity with the statutory requirement.

12. What can be culled out from the decision of the Larger Bench that the conditions in the form of Clauses appended to Sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the said Act are mandatory as opposed to the contentions raised in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahu (supra).

13. Bearing in mind the exposition of law by the Special Bench that the provision is mandatory in nature and no laxity can be shown nor should the Court take a contrary view to what appears from a manifest reading thereof, let us examine whether the notice containing the name in excess to the members, who submitted their resolution and/or requisition can be declared invalid and not in accordance with the said Section.

14. Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 exhaustively contain the requirements, which includes the fixation of date, hour and place of the meeting and such notice is to be sent to all members holding the Office on the date of such notice. It further mandates the annexation of the copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution and the date of convening the meeting should not fall short of 15 days from the date of its issuance. There is no other requirement which can be seen and/or visualized from the reading of the said provision and in the event the notice contains those imperative requirements, it cannot be held to be invalid and/or not in consonance with the requirement of law.

15. A distinction has to be borne in our mind when a notice which meets the requirement of law and the notice which does not contain the requisite conditions as provided in the law. In a former case, there is hardly any scope of challenge and/or interference by the Court, but in the later case, the Court shall interfere with the said notice and may declare the same invalid being not in consonance with law.

16. There is another aspect, which cannot be overlooked where the notice not only contained all the requisites/imperatives, but also contains surplus information and/or facts which neither germane from the requirement envisaged in the statutory provision nor was so warranted. Whether such notice becomes automatically invalid; the answer is certainly in negative. The facts which are not the requirement under the statute, if pleaded the same is mere surplusage and does not render such notice a complete alien to the statutory requirement provided that the requirement under the statute is evidently and eminently present in the said notice. Any additional facts or information, if incorporated in the notice, which is not warranted under the statutory provision cannot be used as a weapon against the issuing authority nor would render the action of the authority liable to be struck down.

17. What is required under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act is the issuance of notice containing the date, hour and the place of the meeting accompanied with a copy of the requisition and/or proposed resolution and the date of the meeting should not fall short of 15 days. If such being the only requirement under the said provision, the disclosure of the name of the requisitionist and its mis-match with the proposed resolution and/or requisition cannot be said to be fatal for entire action to be declared as illegal and/or invalid.

18. In a democratic polity, the majoritarian view is always accepted and in the event, the majority has taken a decision for removal of Sarpanch having signified their intention of no confidence on him, any interference on such trivial issue would disturb the very fabric of democracy, and, therefore, the Court should avoid any casual exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. It is undisputed that out of 16 members, 14 members have voted against the appellant and the proposed resolution of no confidence has been vetted and/or confirmed, which we feel does not invite to be struck down on the premise that the notice under Section 24 (2) is invalid.

20. We, thus, do not find any grounds warranting interference, and, therefore, the instant Writ Appeal along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stand dismissed.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge Bichi Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 02-Jul-2026 21:38:59 Signature Not Verified