NAMITARANI PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE prayer in aforesaid two cases are one and the same, and the counsel engaged by the parties are the same, both the cases were heard analogously and the following common order is passed thereon.

(2.) AS per the writ petition in W.P.(c) No. 14559 of 2009, Pokatunga Gram Panchayat consists of 15 wards. The Petitioner therein is the elected sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. Since ward member Bibekananda Sahu, (opp. party No. 6) did not attend three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat, he ceased to be a member, and as such, vide letter dated 14.9.2009 it was communicated to the Sub -Collector, Angul to cancel his membership. In the same letter the Sub -Collector, Angul was also communicated to cancel the membership of Opp.parties 7 to 10 on different grounds. While the same was under consideration Opp.parties 6 to 11 being motivated by the Naib -Sarpanch, sent requisition to the Sub -Collector, Angul for convening a meeting of no confidence motion against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Sub -Collector, Angul convened a special meeting fixing the date to 6.10.2009 for holding of no confidence motion against the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner before issue of notice for no confidence motion against her, her representation to cancel the membership of opp.parties 6 to 10 ought to have been considered. Had their membership been cancelled, they could not have passed the resolution for no confidence motion. Hence, the Petitioner prayed to direct the official opp.parties particularly opp. Party No. 3 to act upon the letter of the Petitioner dated 14.9.2009 and quash the notice of no confidence motion dated 16.9.2009 under Annexure -3.

(3.) IN W.P.(c) No. 16024 of 2009 the Petitioners, who are two of the ward members of Pokatunga Gram Panchayat, also prayed to quash the notice of no confidence motion dated 16.9.2009 issued by the Sub -Collector, Angul. As per their case, to abdicate the Sarpanch from her office and to be the Sarpanch in her place, the Naib -Sarpanch motivated some ward members to bring no confidence motion against the Sarpanch. Out of 15 members, he took 13 members to Puri on 14.9.2009 and kept them away from the village till 5.10.2009. On 6.10.2009 they directly came to Pokatunga G.P. Office and voted against the Sarpanch. The Petitioners also took the plea that notice only was served upon them by a special messenger. Copies of requisition and the proposed resolution to be moved in the meeting were not attached to it. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that as per Section 25(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "G.P. Act") opp.parties 6 to 10 being disqualified to hold the office of ward member are not competent to sign the requisition. So the notice dated 16.9.2009 deserves to be quashed. At this stage, it would be profitable to quote Section 26(3) of the G.P. Act which reads as follows