SUPRAVA SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this Writ Petition whether the Notice No. 724 dated 22.05.2015 issued by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur - opposite party No. 3 under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 fixing the meeting for moving No-Confidence Motion without fixing the place of meeting is valid and sustainable. The petitioner was elected as Sarpancha of Taliha Grama Panchayat under Dasarathpur Panchayat Samiti in the district of Jajpur. The total number of members of the Grama Panchayat including the petitioner is twenty one and the petitioner is continuing as Sarpancha since the month of February, 2012 and also discharging her duties accordingly. While matter stood thus, 14 members of the said Grama Panchayat passed a resolution to move No Confidence Motion against the present petitioner and they have issued the requisition to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur - opposite party No. 3. On receipt of a copy of the resolution as well as requisition, opposite party No. 3 issued the impugned notice after due verification of the signatures of the Ward Members.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the impugned notice opposite party No. 3 has specified the date and time of the meeting without mentioning the place of meeting as required under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He further submitted that 15 days time as provided under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has not been given from the date of the corrigendum issued by opposite party No. 3 and only after two days the meeting was held. Therefore, the impugned notice as well as the consequential notice for No Confidence Motion is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions reported in : 2005 (II) OLR 659 and 1988 (I) OLR 76.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that a corrigendum was issued by opposite party No. 3 on 08.6.2015 and the same was duly served on the concerned Executive Officer of Taliha Grama Panchayat. Therefore, the requirement of the statutory provisions is fulfilled and since the -corrigendum is only issued as a curative measure, no illegality has been committed by opposite party No. 3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No. 3 stating that as the place of meeting was not clearly reflected in the notice, the same was issued by a corrigendum rectifying the omission in the impugned notice.