UDENATH NAIK vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010604902025
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
------------------
Udenath Naik …. Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha,
represented through the
Commissioner-cum-
Secretary Panchayati Raj
and Drining water
Department, Secretariat,
Building, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda
2. The Collector, Balangir
3. The Sub-Collector,
Balangir
4. Kuntala Sahu
5. Ushabati Barik
6. Kaikei Dharua
7. Antaryami Biswal
8. Gobardhan Dharua
9. Bijuli Sahoo
10. Iswar Ray
11. Sabita Pradhan
12. Santoshini Dalapati
13. Srikar Dalapati
14. Krushna Ch. Pradhan
Opposie Parties
….
Mr. S. Rout, Advocate
For Petitioner :
1 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. A. K. Mohanty, Adv. (O.P.
Nos.4 to 14)
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29.08.2026
Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel
V. Narasingh, J.
for the Petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State (Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3), and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for
Opposite Party Nos.4 to 14.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by
the Sarpanch of Badatika Gram Panchayat assailing
the initiation of a ‘No Confidence motion’ against
the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the
resolution dated 22.05.2025, which is the basis for
initiation of the proceeding, is not in consonance
2 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
1
with the provisions contained in Section 24 of the
1
24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib -
(1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat
Sarpanch :–
specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a
resolution is passed, supported by a majority of not less than two-
thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, regarding
want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch the resolution
shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the
Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolution publish
the same on his notice-board and with effect from the date of such
Publication the member holding the Office of Sarpanch or the Naib-
Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated
such Office.
(2) In convening a meeting under Sub-Section (1) and in the
conduct of business at such meeting the procedure shall be in
accordance with such rules, as may be prescribed, subject however
to the following provisions, namely :
a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisition
signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Grama
Panchayat along with a Copy of the resolution proposed to be
moved at the meeting;
(b) the requisititon shall be addressed to the Sub-Divisional
Officer;
(c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisition shall fix
the date, hour and place of such meeting and give notice of the
same to all the members holding Office on the date of such notice
along with a Copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution,
at least fifteen clear days before the date so fixed;
(d) the aforesaid notice shall be sent by post under Certificate of
posting and a Copy thereof shall be published at least seven days
prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice-board of the
Samiti;
(e) the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely
on the ground that the notice has not been received by any
member;
(f) the Sub-Divisional Officer or if he is unable to attend, any
Gazetted Officer specially authorised by him in that behalf shall
preside over, conduct and regulate the proceedings of the meeting.
(g) the voting at all such meetings shall be by secret ballot;
(h) no such meeting shall stand adjourned to a subsequent date
and no item of business other than the resolution for recording want
of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may
be, shall be taken up for consideration at the meeting;
(i) if the number of members present at the meeting is less than
two-thirds of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat, the
resolution shall stand annulled;
(j) if the resolution is passed at the meeting supported by the
majority as specified in Sub-Section (1) the Presiding Officer shall
3 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.
2. This Court, by order dated 02.09.2025,
while issuing notice, in I.A. No.14474 of 2025
directed, as an interim measure, that the ‘No
Confidence motion’ may be put to vote, but the
result thereof shall not be published.
3. The said interim order is still in vogue.
immediately forward the same in original along with the record of
the proceedings to the Collector who shall forthwith publish the
resolution in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (1); and
(k) where any Gazetted Officer presides at the meeting he shall,
without prejudice to the provisions of Clause (j), also send a Copy
of the resolution to the Sub-divisional Officer for information and
such action as may be necessary.
(3) When a meeting has been held in pursuance of Sub-Section (2)
for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch,
as the case may be, no fresh requisition for a meeting shall be
maintainable–
(a) in cases falling under Clauses (i) and (j) of the said Sub-Section
or where the resolution is defeated after being considered at the
meeting so held, before the expiry of one year from the date of
such meeting; or
(b) where the notification calling for general election to the Grama
Panchayat has already been published under or in pursuance of
Section 12.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) no
requisition under Sub-Section (2) shall be maintainable in the case
of a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, before the
expiry of two years from the date on which such Sarpanch or Naib-
Sarpanch enters Office :
Provided that all requisitions received under Sub-Section (2) prior
to the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats
(Second Amendment) Act, 1993, in which no meeting for recording
want of confidence has been held by the said date, shall stand
abated.
4 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, Mr. Rout, that, on a bare
perusal of the proposed resolution, which is in
vernacular, it can be seen that the same is not in
the nature of a resolution, rather, it conveys a
decision which has already been taken. In this
context, he relies with vehemence on the
submission that the word ‘Siddhanta’, as
mentioned in the proposed resolution, connotes a
decision already taken and, hence, does not
qualify as a proposed resolution. To fortify his
submission, he relies upon the definition of
‘Siddhanta’ as given in the “Purna Chandra
Bhasakosha”.
To appreciate the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner in its proper
perspective, the definition of ‘Siddhanta’, as
5 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
stated in “Purna Chandra Bhasakosha”, Vol. VII,
is extracted hereunder:
xxx xxx
“xxx
-
Siddhanta- ୧ . | ମୀମାାଂସା ; ବିଚାରର ଶେଷ ଫଳ ; ଉତ୍ତମ ରୂପେ
ବିଚାର ପରେ ସ୍ଥିର କରାଯିବା ମତ – 1.final decision;
conclusion; conclusion arrive at after due
consideration. ୨ | ( ନ୍ୟାୟଶାସ୍ତ୍ର ) ପୂର୍ବ ପକ୍ଷ ମୀମାାଂସାପୂର୍ବକ
ସିଦ୍ଧପକ୍ଷ ସ୍ଥାପନ -2. (logic) arriving at a conclusion
from predicate a data; logical conclusion.
xxx xxx xxx
”
5. And, in this context, he places relies on the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
2
Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector , in which
the law has been set at rest that, as a
precondition for moving a motion of ‘No
Confidence’, there must be a resolution and a
requisition. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, Mr. Rout, that, ex facie, the
recitals of the document which is being pressed
into service as a resolution, being a decision
already taken, disclose a patent infraction of the
2
Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector , 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4218.
6 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
law laid down by this Court relating to the status
of a resolution. Such precondition of a resolution
having not been satisfied, the consequential steps
for holding the meeting have to be treated as non
est in the eye of law and, accordingly, the notice
for holding the ‘No Confidence motion’ at
Annexure-2 and the ‘No Confidence motion’,
which is stated to have been held in the
meanwhile, are also liable to be declared null and
void.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State, Mr. Ray, as well as Mr. Mohanty,
learned counsel appearing for the requisitionists,
Opposite Party Nos.4 to 14, oppose such
submission and submit that the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner is no longer res integra, in as much as
this Court has answered the same in its judgment
7 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
in the case of Smt. Gunduri Singh v. State of
3
Odisha .
7. The rejoinder has been filed at the behest
of the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Ray, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 to
3, as well as Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the requisitionists, Opposite Party
Nos.4 to 14, submits that the ground taken that
‘Siddhanta’ cannot be construed as a proposed
resolution is no longer res integra in the light of
the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
3
Gunduri Singh (supra) .
9. On a bare perusal of the said judgment, it
is seen that the word ‘Siddhanta’ came to be
interpreted in the said case and, referring to the
3
Smt. Gunduri Singh v. State of Odisha , 2026 SCC OnLine Ori
3705.
8 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
judgments which are holding the field, this Court
held that the mention of the word ‘Siddhanta’
does not nullify a resolution, construed in the
light of the said judgment. Reading the impugned
resolution, this Court is of the considered view
that the same unambiguously conveys the
intention of the requisitionists to initiate the
process of ‘No Confidence motion’ against the
Petitioner.
10. Hence, on a perspicuous analysis of the
materials on record and the law laid down in this
regard, as discussed above, this Court does not
find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition being devoid of merit
stands dismissed.
11. The interim order stands vacated.
9 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025
12. The result of ‘No Confidence motion’, which
is stated to have been held, may be declared and
steps consequential thereto be taken in
accordance with the provisions in this regard in
terms of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
disposed of. Costs made easy.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 29 August, 2026/ Santoshi
01.09.2026 uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Sep-2026 18:47:15
10 10
Page of
W.P.(C). No.23871 of 2025