SUBASINI MEHER Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the notice dated 27.5.2015, vide Annexure-1, issued by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no. 3, fixing the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 24.06.2015 at 10 A.M. for consideration of the requisition regarding "no confidence motion" against the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti in the year 2012. Thereafter, she was elected as a Chairman of the Paikmal Panchayat Samiti in the district of Bargarh. She discharged her duties with utmost satisfaction to the general public. During three years of her tenure, there was no complaint against her. While the matter stood thus, she received the notice along with requisition as well as proposal dated 27.5.2015, vide Annexure-1, issued by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no. 3, fixing the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 24.06.2015 at 10 A.M. for consideration of the requisition regarding "no confidence motion" against her. It is further stated that the allegation made in the proposal are unfounded and baseless. The resolution was passed in a fraudulent manner. The signatures of the absentee members appeared in the resolution and the members intimated the same to the opposite party no. 3 in writing. The opponents are determined to remove her from the post. They published motion in different oriya dailies.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It is stated that the meeting has been convened by the Sub-Collector, Padampur, opposite party no. 3, after receipt of the requisition signed by more than two-thirds members of the Paikmal Panchayat Samiti along with a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved in that meeting the resolution containing in the proposal was drawn up by the members of the Samiti. Opposite party no. 3 verified the signatures of the members and found the same to be genuine. No member had ever complained or intimated the opposite party no. 3 about the fraudulent signatures appearing in the requisition and resolution. The petitioner had not mentioned the names of such members whose signatures had been forged.