HINDU PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant Writ Application the petitioner challenges the notice dated 10.1.2005 issued by the Sub -Collector, Baliguda and the consequential order dated 9.2.2005 passed by Collector, Kandhamal (Opp. Party No. 2) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Barakhama Grama Panchayat in the district of Kandhamal. On 11.1.2005, petitioner received a notice dated 10.1.2005 from the Sub -Collector (Opp. Party No. 3) convening a meeting to consider the 'no confidence motion' against him to be held on 25.1.2005 in the office of the above Grama Panchayat. On 25.1.2005 a special meeting was held at 11 a.m. The petitioner and all the Ward Members were present in the said meeting. The meeting was presided over by the Revenue Officer. The no confidence motion was passed with majority. The Presiding Officer of the meeting sent a copy of the proceeding to the Sub -Collector, Baliguda. Thereafter, the final order was notified by the Collector (Opp. Party No. 2) in exercise of powers under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) THIS Court in the case of Sarat Padhi (supra) held that the Scheme of the notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) be divided into three parts; (i) requirement of giving the notice, (ii) fixing the margin of time between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting, and (iii) service of notice on the members. The first two parts namely, (i) and (ii) are mandatory in nature. In Other words, if there is any breach of any of these two conditions, the meeting will be invalid without any question of prejudice. But the third requirement is only directory.