DURYODHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , the elected Sarpanch of Gadadhar Grama Panchayat, has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice of Sub -Collector, Nayagarh to record vote of no -confidence against him and the order of removal issued by the Collector, Nayagarh removing him (petitioner) from the post of Sarpanch.

(2.) SHORT of details, the facts leading to the present application are as follows : Gadadhar Grama Panchayat (hereinafter to be called as 'the Grama Panchayat', in short) in the district of Nayagarh has 12 Wards and accordingly it has 12 Ward Members and one Sarpanch. In the last election held in the year 2002, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat for a period of 5 years and he assumed the office as Sarpanch. When the matter stood thus, 9 of the Ward Members submitted requisition accompanied by a proposed resolution dated 10.9.2004 to the Sub -Collector, Nayagarh to convene a meeting for recording vote of no confidence against the petitioner and basing on the said requisition, the Sub -Collector, Nayagarh issued notice bearing No. 1058 dated 1.10.2004 to the members to record the proposed vote of no confidence. In the meeting held on 20.10.2004, 10 of the 13 members including the petitioner were present. 9 of these 10 members cast their votes in favour of no confidence motion and one cast against the motion. Basing on this result, the Collector, Nayagarh issued order bearing No. 1181 dated 20.10.2004, inter alia, removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application to quash the notice bearing No. 1058 dated 1.10.2004 issued by the Sub -Collector, Annexure -2 and the order dated 20.10.2004 issued by the Collector. Nayagarh, Annexure -3 basically on the plea that the required number of members to sign on the requisition and to pass the no confidence motion was 10 and not 9 as has been accepted by the Sub -Collector and Collector, Nayagarh in the instant case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State supported the decision of the Collector, Nayagarh with a simple submission that 9 members out of 13 constitute 2/3rd majority.