SEBATI PUJARI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chatahandi Grama Panchayat under Nabarangpur Panchayat Samiti in the district of Nabarangpur consists of fifteen wards and total number of members of the Grama Panchayat is sixteen including the appellant. In the month of February, 2012, the appellant was elected as Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat with a huge majority of votes. While continuing as such, she received notice no.470 dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure-1) from the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur regarding no confidence motion against her. In the said notice, it was mentioned that a requisition had been received on 29.04.2015 from 12 Ward Members seeking no confidence motion, for which a special meeting was to be convened on 20.05.2015 at 11 a.m. in the Chatahandi Grama Panchayat hall as per the provisions contained in Section 24(1)(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") and Dr. Gunanidhi Nayak, Block Development Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Nabarangpur would preside over the meeting. Challenging the said notice, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No. 9261 of 2015 before this Court on the grounds that the notice was issued without complying the provisions contained under Section 24(2)(a)(c) of the Act and that the minutes of the meeting dated 15.04.2015 was not the proposed resolution as per the Act. But, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.07.2016, while holding that no confidence motion requisitioned by the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur was not illegal, declined to quash the said notice and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this intra Court appeal.

(2.) Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in not considering the provisions of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act as well as the ratio decided by this Court in Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa and others, 2001 91 CutLT 159 and Muktamanjari Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2010 2 OrissaLR 473 in their proper perspective. He, further urged that the case of Jagadish Pradhan and others v. Kapileswar Pradhan and others, 1987 1 OrissaLR 335 as well as other cases, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge, having been decided on different context all together, are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition cannot sustain in the eye of law and, hence, interference of this Court is sought for. It was also urged that, while considering the case of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the judgment of this Court in Anadi Charan Das v. State of Orissa and Ors.,1970 36 CutLT 153.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions contained in Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act have been complied with in letter and spirit and, as such, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned by issuing the impugned notice dated 04.05.2015 convening the special meeting for no confidence motion against the appellant, particularly when 12 out of total 16 members had signed the resolution and there was no valid and justifiable reason for the appellant to continue as Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, while justifying the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, he urged that this Court should not interfere with the same in this appeal. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha and others, 2016 1 CurLR 559.