GOVINDA CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. S D O SADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Chairman of Punchayat Samity of Bahanga challenging the validity of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Cuttack (Sadar) postponing the meeting alleged to have been called on 10-8-1963 for the purpose of a vote of no-confidence against him and also the validity of the subsequent meeting held on 2-9- 1963 in which such a vote of no confidence was passed against him.

(2.) ON a requisition by seventeen members of the said Punchayat Samity expressing want of confidence in the petitioner, the sub-divisional Officer convened a meeting for that purpose to be held on 10-8-1963 at Kuanpal Block development Office at 2 P. M. This order was passed under Clause (c) of Subsection (2) of section 46b of the Orissa Punchayat Samity and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959, From the counter affidavit of the sub-divisional officer it appears that due to heavy rains and his pre-occupation with work at Cuttack town he was unable to preside over the meeting of the said samity as required by statute. Hence he sent an express telegram to the Block Development Officer on 10-8-1963 instructing him to inform the members of the samity, prior to their assembling for the meeting that the meeting would be postponed. I may quote the copy of the telegram:

(3.) IN considering the validity of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the relevant provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 46-B of the Act have to be carefully scrutinised. That subsection is as follows:-" (2) In convening a meeting under Sub-section (1) and in the conduct of business at such meeting the procedure herein specified shall be followed:--namely