AKRURA NIAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was elected to the office of Sarpanch of Tikirapada Gram Panchayat in the month of February, 2002 and assumed the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. While the matter stood thus, 12 out of 14 Ward Members of the said Panchayat sent a requisition to the Sub -Collector, Nuapada to convene a meeting for carrying out a no confidence motion against the petitioner. Basing on the requisition and the proposed resolution, the Sub -Collector issued the impugned notice to the Ward Members and the petitioner -Sarpanch fixing the date of the meeting to 3.8.2004. Petitioner has challenged the legality of the said notice dated 16.7.2004, Annexure -2 in the present writ application, mainly, on the ground that the provision laid down under Section 24 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, in short, 'the Act', is ultra vires the Constitution and that the statutory provision as laid down in Section 24(2)(c) of the Act was not complied with.

(2.) MR . S. K. Sarangi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner does not press the issue of constitutional validity of the Section 24 of the Act as this Court has already decided in the case of Bhagabat Sahu v. Collector, Angul and Ors. (2005) (2) CJD (HC) 39 that Section 24 of the Act does not ultra vires the Constitution, He, however, submitted that the impugned notice is illegal and invalid for non -compliance of the provisions of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act. According to him notice was issued on 19.7.2004 and was received by the petitioner on 20.7.2004 and so, 15 days clear time before holding the meeting of no confidence motion was not available. In support of such submission, Mr. Sarangi relies on the postal cover of the said notice.

(3.) FROM the contentions of the respective parties, it appears that the only point of controversy is whether 15 days clear notice was given before holding of the meeting of the vote of no confidence against the petitioner.