SMT. SUJATA PRADHAN Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate, I have also heard the Jeamed counsel for the caveators, who happens to be the 31 members of the Bheden Panchayat Samiti.

(2.) The petitioner is duly elected Chairman of Bheden Panchayat Samiti. The members of the said Panchayat Samiti under the leadership of Vice-Chairman sent a letter on 27.06.2014 to the opposite party No. 1 enclosing no confidence motion against the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 took into consideration and issued notice. The same was signed on 05.11.2014. However, the notice was sent on 10.11.2014 to the petitioner. It was delivered by hand and served on 13.11.2014. In that letter, the petitioner was noticed that no confidence motion has been initiated and the vote for no confidence shall take place on 18.11.2014 in the forenoon at 11 a.m. Such notice, as at Annexure-1, is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was received notice on 13.11.2014, clearly 7 days notice as envisaged under Section 46-B(2)(c) of the Panchayat Samiti Act 1959 has been violated and hence, the notice of vote of no confidence should be quashed. The learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the caveators submits that the date of receipt of notice is immaterial and as per the statute, it is the date of issue of notice, which is material. In this connection, the reported case of Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa and others, 1988 (1) OLR 76 and unreported case of Smt. Padmabati Devi v. State of Orissa and others, decided on 30.10.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 14539 of 2009 are relied upon.