SULOCHANA SETHY Vs. COLLECTOR, PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) Mr. Dash submitted that the petitioner is a Sarpanch of Isanpur Grama Panchayat under Gop Block of Puri district. She has discharged her duties properly not withstanding Covid-19 Pandemic. Despite this, on 28/2/2021 vide Annexure-4 series, some Ward Members including the Naib Sarpanch called a meeting and decided to end her tenure by bringing a No Confidence Motion under Sec. 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, for short, "the Act". Accordingly, on 3/3/2021 a requisition was also sent under Annexure-4 series to Sub-Collector, Puri along with the decision dtd. 28/2/2021 requesting him to take necessary steps under Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 24 of "the Act", which deals with No Confidence Motion against Sarpanch. Accordingly, vide notice dtd. 24/3/2021 the Sub-Collector, Puri under Annexure-1, intimated the petitioner and others about holding of No Confidence Motion on 12/4/2021 at 11 A.M. at Kadampatna Up-graded Primary School, Isanpur. Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr.Dash submitted that the decision of some of the Ward Members on 28/2/2021 who later on submitted the requisition on 3/3/2021 to the Sub-Collector, Puri praying for bringing a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner cannot be described as a proposed resolution as envisaged in Clause(a) SubSec. (2) of Sec. 24 of "the Act", as therein, purpose was not clearly indicated. Accordingly, he submitted that since the mandatory requirement has not been satisfied from the very beginning, therefore, issuance of notice dtd. 24/3/2021 under Annexure-1 directing holding of No Confidence Motion is bad in law and accordingly the same should be set aside. In this contest, he relied on a decision of this Court in Jaga Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 51 and submitted that the above noted decision makes it clear that the resolution should clearly indicate its purpose and since the purpose has not been clearly indicated in the decision dtd. 28/2/2021 under Annexure-4 series therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated, which warrants quashing of notice under Annexure-1.