RASESWARI SETHI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Sarapanch of Mahadevpali Grama Panchayat under Binka Police Station in the District of Sonepur. She has filed this writ petition to quash the notice Annexure -4, i.e., the notice of no confidence motion issued to her in accordance with the provision under Section 24(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short 'the Act'). Opposite party Nos. 5 to 15 are 11 out of the 14 elected Ward Members of the said Panchayat and from amongst them opposite party Nos. 5, 7, 8, 11 8r 14 are the five Ward Members who have disqualified themselves to continue as the Ward Members in view of the provision in Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, their participation in the meeting to resolve for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner is legally unsustainable. Such Ward Members have entered appearance as interveners and participated in the hearing. Learned Standing Counsel also obtained instruction from the opposite party/State and filed the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2 stating that none of the aforesaid Ward Members have been declared disqualified by any order of the competent authority and therefore, they had the competency to participate in the deliberations and to adopt the resolution of no confidence against the writ petitioner.

(2.) IN course of hearing on admission for disposal of the case at the stage of admission, Mr. H.S. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since non -attending of three consecutive ordinary meetings held during the period of four months results in disqualification of a person to continue with his status as elected ward member, therefore, by operation of the law in Section 25(2)(b) the defaulting ward members had lost their status as ward members and, therefore, they could not have participated in the proceeding in which resolution was passed to initiate a no confidence motion against the petitioner. After going through the provision of law and taking into consideration the above noted contention of the petitioner and the rival contention of the opposite party members, we find that the petitioner was tempted to misread the law so as to suit her purpose. Section 25(2)(b) is the legal mandate, which demands declaration of the disqualification by the competent authority, i.e., the Collector in accordance with the provision in Section 25(2)(b) on receipt of complaint, he shall have to conduct an enquiry by providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after being satisfied about the disqualification to declare the disqualification of the member. In that respect non -attendance of three consecutive ordinary meetings does not automatically result in disqualification of a ward member and it is to be established that such ward members failed to attend such consecutive meetings held during a period of four months. To determine that aspect, the person against whom disqualification is alleged, must be served with show -cause notice with relevant allegation and opportunity to file show -cause and hearing must also be provided before a decision is taken. Therefore, mere allegation of non -attendance or production of resolution book of Grama Panchayat showing non -attendance of the concerned ward member is not sufficient to disqualify him.