CHAMELI OJHA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
WP(C)/25251/2026
ODHC010604922026
2026:OHC:249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25251 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010604922026
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Chameli Ojha ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ....... Opposite Parties
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Sukant Kumar Dalai,
Advocate
For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General &
Senior Advocate
along with Mr. P.K. Ray,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Opposite Party Nos.10, : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath,
18-22 & 24-26 Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. S.S. Tripathy,
Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 11.08.2026 Date of Judgment: 28.10.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 47
S.K. Mishra, J .
1. The Petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch of
Tikhiri Gram Panchayat under Mahakalpada Block, in
the district of Kendrapada, has preferred the present writ
petition challenging the legality and validity of the notice
dated 27.07.2026, issued under Section 24(2) (c) of the
Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, for short, „the Act,
1964‟. The consequential decision of the Sub-Collector,
Kendrapada to convene the special meeting for
consideration of a Motion of No Confidence against the
Petitioner, which was scheduled to be held on 13.08.2026
on the premises of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat Office, is also
under challenge.
1.1. Such notice so also consequential proceeding
initiated pursuant thereto have been challenged by the
Petitioner basically on the grounds that statutory notice,
as contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964,
was served on her father, so also subsequently through
Speed Post without the copies of the requisition and the
proposed resolution and without affording the Petitioner
Page 2 of 47
mandatory fifteen clear days‟ notice before holding the
special meeting.
Background facts:
2. As pleaded in the writ petition, the Petitioner,
who belongs to the Ruling Party, was elected as Sarpanch
of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat by the mandate of the public
by securing thumping majority in the year 2022. Since
then, she is assuming her office with utmost sincerity
and with complete obligation to the statutory provisions
enshrined under the Act, 1964. So far as Tikhiri Gram
Panchayat is concerned, it is consisting of 21 Wards. The
Members of the said Wards have the right to participate
in the “No Confidence Motion”, so also to initiate the
same under the Act, 1964.
2.1. It has been alleged in the writ petition that, the
Petitioner was put to harassment by the local
administration and party leaders for standing up for the
people and the said news was spread over throughout the
country by the media. However, during her struggle, all
the Ward Members stood firmly with her and supported
her not only at the Gram Panchayat level, but also
Page 3 of 47
accompanied her to the State Capital in protest against
the cruelty and injustice meted out to her.
2.2. It is the further case of the Petitioner that
while she was busy in relief works and also was staying
in different villages, so also in the office of the Gram
Panchayat, on her arrival at home on 03.08.2026, she
came to know that a notice dated 27.07.2026 was served
on her father on 31.07.2026 by some unknown officials.
On perusal of the said notice, she further came to know
that on the request of some Ward Members, the
Sub-Collector, Kendrapada has fixed the meeting of “No
Confidence Motion” on 13.08.2026 at 11:00 A.M., at the
premises of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat.
2.3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that her
father is an illiterate and senior citizen. On the direction
of the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada, some unknown
officials, taking advantage of ignorance of the father of
the Petitioner, served a copy of the notice dated
27.07.2026 on her father on 31.07.2026 and obtained his
thumb impression on such notice along with signature of
one Babita Behera. After going through the provisions of
Page 4 of 47
law, she came to know that the said notice of “No
Confidence Motion” has to be served along with copies of
the proposed resolution and requisition, coupled with
fifteen clear days‟ notice. However, no such copies of the
proposed resolution and requisition were enclosed to the
said notice dated 27.07.2026, even though it was
indicated in the said notice that copies of the proposed
resolution and requisition have been annexed thereto.
Knowing so, she immediately wrote to the Sub-Collector,
Kendrapada (Opposite Party No.3) on 03.08.2026
indicating therein that notice was served on her father on
31.07.2026 despite her presence in the Panchayat
Headquarter. She was busy in relief works on the eve of
ongoing flood in the district, more specifically in the
Panchayat affected areas and was in continuous touch
with the Sub-Collector as well as the B.D.O on the flood
related works. It was also indicated therein that copy of
the notice was served on her father without copies of the
proposed resolution and requisition, who is an illiterate
person, by taking his thumb impression. Accordingly, a
request was made to the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada to
Page 5 of 47
supply her copies of the proposed resolution and
requisition.
2.4. Further, it has been stated in the writ petition
that, in terms of Section 24(2)(d) of the Act, 1964, instead
of Sub-Collector, the Collector sent the said notice dated
27.07.2026 again by Speed Post, which was received by
one Suryakanta Ojha on 03.08.2026, who happens to be
the brother of the Petitioner. On receiving the said notice
once again through post, the Petitioner ascertained that
said notice has also been sent to her without copies of
the proposed resolution and requisition. Hence, once
again she wrote to the Collector, Kendrapada on
06.08.2026 to supply the enclosures to her, but in vain.
Stand of the Opposite Parties:
3. It is worthwhile to mention here that though
the writ petition was listed under the heading “Fresh
Admission” on 10.08.2026 for the first time, on the said
date the matter was substantially heard by this Court, as
the private Opposite Party Nos.10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24,
25 and 26 [total nine(9) in numbers], who are the Ward
Members of different Wards of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat,
Page 6 of 47
appeared on Caveat and also filed an affidavit in the
Court, sworn by the Opposite Party No.18. Paragraph
Nos.2 to 5 of the said affidavit, being relevant, are
extracted below:-
“2. That, in the Panchayat Election held in the
year 2022, I was elected as the Ward Member of
Ward No.14 of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat.
3. That, the ward members of Tikhiri Gram
Panchayat have brought-forth a no confidence
motion against the Sarpanch i.e., Chameli Ojha
in accordance with the provisions of the Gram
Panchayat Act, 1964 and the rules made
thereunder. Pursuant to the requisition and
resolution submitted by the elected ward
members, vide letter No.7648 dated 27.07.2026,
the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada directed to
convey a special meeting for the purpose of said
no confidence motion which is scheduled to be
held on 13.08.2026.
4. That, it is pertinent to state here that, the
notice dated 27.07.2026 along with a copy of
resolution and requisition sent via Speed Post
have duly been received by me on 30.07.2026. It
is further apposite to state here that, I have the
knowledge that other ward members of the
Panchayat have also received a copy of the
notice dated 27.07.2026 along with a copy of
requisition and resolution.
Copy of the notice dated 27.07.26 along with the
copy of the resolution and requisition have been
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A.
5. That, on the basis of the above stated facts
and circumstances it will be safe to conclude that
the averments taken by the petitioner that the
copy of the notice dated 27.07.2026 was served
upon her without a copy of the resolution and
requisition holds no ground.”
3.1. So far as the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada
(Opposite Party No.3), the learned Advocate General
Page 7 of 47
argued the matter at length based on the written
instruction imparted by the Opposite Party No.3, which
was filed in the Court on 10.08.2026 and was taken on
record. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for
the parties at length, on the prayer of the learned
Advocate General, the matter stood adjourned to the next
day, i.e., 11.08.2026, permitting the State-Opposite
Parties to bring on record the said written instruction
imparted by the Opposite Party No.3, in form of an
Affidavit. On being so permitted, the learned State
Counsel filed an Affidavit on 11.08.2026, sworn by the
Opposite Party No.3, i.e., Sub-Collector, Kendrapada.
Instead of filing a detailed Counter Affidavit, dealing with
the averments made in the writ petition in details,
simply, denying the allegations made by the Petitioner to
be incorrect, it was stated in the said Affidavit that the
notice dated 27.07.2026 along with copies of the
proposed resolution and requisition was sent to all the
twenty two (22) Ward Members of Tikhiri Gram
Panchayat, so also the Petitioner, the Sarpanch of the
G.P., by Speed Post on 28.07.2026. All the Ward
Page 8 of 47
Members have received the said notice dated 27.07.2026
along with the copies of the proposed resolution and
requisition. Paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the said Affidavit,
being relevant, are reproduced below:-
That it is humbly submitted that the said
“3.
allegation of the petitioner is not correct as the
notice was sent to all 22 ward members of
Tikhiri Gram Panchayat and the petitioner,
Sarpanch of the G.P, by Speed Post on dated
28.07.2026 and all the ward members have
received the said notice dated 27.07.2026
alongwith the copies of the requisition and
resolution and none of the above ward members
have raised any objection that he/she has not
received either the copy of the requisition or
resolution along with the notice dated
27.07.2026. It is pertinent to submit here
that from the bulk booking receipt issued by
the Department of Post, it would be revealed
that weight of each of the envelopes sent to
the ward members as well as to the
petitioner weights 42 grams and therefore,
the contention of the petitioner that the
notice received by her brother was only the
notice dated 27.07.2026 without the copies
of the requisition and resolution is not
correct.
It is pertinent to submit here that it is
clearly reflected in the notice dated 27.07.2026
that the copy of the requisition and resolution are
annexed to the said notice. Copy of the notice
alongwith copies of the requisition and resolution
are annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3 and the
copy of the bulk booking receipt showing booking
of 27 numbers of articles sent to 27 persons,
which includes 22 ward members and petitioner,
is annexed herewith as Annexure-B/3.
4. That it is further submitted that the
aforesaid notice dated 27.07.2026 accompanied
with the copy of requisition and resolution was
also served on the father of the petitioner in the
residence of the petitioner in presence of the
Page 9 of 47
villagers and one witness, namely, Babita
Behera through the Gram Panchayat
Development Officer (GPDO).
5. That the other assertion and allegation of
the petitioner is that the notice received through
postal communication by her brother is on dated
03.08.2026 and therefore, the period between
dated 03.08.2026 and dated 13.08.2026 fall
substantially short of the mandatory period of 15
days as contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of
the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is
thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable in
the eye of law. Law in this regard is well
settled that, the said period of 15 days
prescribed under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act,
1964 is 'directory' and not 'mandatory'.
There should be clear 15 days from the date
of issuance of notice and date of the
proposed meeting to record the vote of no
confidence. In the instant case, the notice has
been issued on dated 27.07.2026 and the same
has been dispatched by post on dated
28.07.2026 and the date of proposed meeting is
dated 13.08.2026. Therefore, there is clear 15
days time in between the date of notice and date
of proposed meeting and therefore, there is
compliance of the mandate prescribed under
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964.”
(Emphasis supplied)
3.2. On the next date of listing, i.e., on 11.08.2026,
though Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
intended to file objection/response to the said Affidavit
filed by the Opposite Party No.3 and also prayed for an
interim protection till filing of such response/objection,
this Court, in view of the pleadings of the parties on
record so also Judgments cited by the learned Counsel
Page 10 of 47
for the parties, was of the view that no
objection/response is required to be filed in reply to the
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly,
the matter was further heard and the judgment was
reserved.
Contentions of the Parties
4. During hearing, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, relying on the provisions enshrined under the
Act, 1964, more particularly, Section 24(1) and Clause (a)
to (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 1964,
vehemently argued that, for convening a meeting under
Sub-section(1) of Section 24 of the Act, 1964, a
rd
requisition has to be signed by at least 1/3 of the
members of the Gram Panchayat along with a copy of the
requisition proposed to be moved at the meeting. That
apart, such requisition has to be addressed to the Sub-
Divisional Officer in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2)
of Section 24 of the Act, 1964. It was further argued that,
in terms of Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the Act, 1964, it is obligatory on the part of the Sub-
Divisional Officer to fix the date, hour and place of
Page 11 of 47
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 (15) clear days before the date so fixed.
However, copies of the requisition as well as proposed
resolution were never supplied to the Petitioner, so also
fifteen (15) clear days‟ notice was lacking in the said
notice, as only a copy of the said notice was served on the
father of the Petitioner on 31.07.2026. Further, the copy
of the notice sent to her by Speed Post was received by
her brother on 03.08.2026 and the date fixed for such
“No Confidence Motion” being 13.08.2026, there was a
shortfall of fifteen (15) clear days‟ notice in terms of
Clause(c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act,
1964.
4.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that such notice with enclosures so also fifteen
(15) clear days‟ notice are mandatory and not directory.
To substantiate his argument advanced before this Court,
Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relied upon
the recent Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
Page 12 of 47
03.02.2026 passed in W.A. No.1721 of 2025 ( Manamati
Pujari Vs. State of Odisha and others ), judgment
dated 28.07.2026 passed in W.A. No.994 of 2026 ( Gyana
Ranjan Dash Vs. State of Odisha and others ) and Full
Bench judgment dated 29.11.2025 passed in W.A.
No.1367 of 2025 ( Nabanita Kapat Patra Vs. Collector,
Kandhamal and another ), reported in 2025 (III) ILR-
CUT-1221.
5. Per contra, Mr. Acharya, learned Advocate
General, relying on the observations made in paragraph
No.18 of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sarat
Padhi Vs. State of Orissa and others , reported in AIR
1988 Ori 116 : (1988) 1 OLR 76 , argued that the scheme
of the notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the
Act, 1964 is divided into three parts; (i) requirement of
giving the notice, (ii) fixing the margin of time between the
date of the notice and the date of meeting, and (iii) service
of the notice on the members. Though requirement of
giving notice and fixing the margin of time between the
date of notice and the date of meeting are mandatory, but
rd
the 3 condition, i.e., mode of service or the failure by
Page 13 of 47
any member to receive the notice at all or allowing him
less than 15 clear days‟ before the date of meeting will
not render the meeting invalid. The said requirement is
only directory. If the said condition is held to be
mandatory, any delinquent Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch
can frustrate the consideration of the resolution of non-
confidence against him by tactfully dealing or avoiding
the service of the notice on him and thus, also frustrate
the holding of the meeting.
5.1. Relying on the instructions imparted by the
Opposite Party No.3, learned Advocate General further
argued that the stand of the Petitioner that she only
received copy of the notice dated 27.07.2026 without
copies of the requisition and proposed resolution is
incorrect. From the bulk booking receipt, issued by the
Department of Post, it is well evident that weights of each
envelope sent to the Ward Members as well as to the
Petitioner were around 42 grams. Such bulk booking
receipts, which reflect that 27 numbers of articles were
sent to 27 persons on 29.07.2026, includes booking of
Page 14 of 47
postal articles sent to 22 Ward Members, as well as the
Petitioner.
6. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, who
represents the private Opposite Parties, nine(9) Ward
Members of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat, apart from
supporting the arguments advanced by the learned
Advocate General, submitted that the date of impugned
notice for “No Confidence Motion” being 27.07.2026 and
the date fixed for such purpose being 13.08.2026, it
cannot be said that there is a violation of mandatory
period of clear 15 days‟ notice, as prescribed under
Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act,
1964.
6.1. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that even if it is accepted that the impugned
notice was received by the Petitioner on 03.08.2026
through Speed Post, the period of fifteen clear days‟ gap
is to be counted from the date of notice and the date of
meeting fixed and not from the date of actual service of
notice. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel contended that,
in the present case, even if the date of notice and date
Page 15 of 47
fixed for holding the meeting are excluded, still there is a
clear 15 days‟ gap, as required under the statute.
Accordingly, it was contended that such a stand taken by
the Petitioner to annul the process of “No Confidence
Motion” on technical ground is unsustainable and
deserves to be rejected out rightly. The writ petition,
being devoid of any merit, be dismissed. To substantiate
his submission, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, apart
from the Full Bench judgment in Sarat Padhi (supra),
relied on the judgment of this Court in Nirakar Sethi
Vs. State of Odisha and others , reported in 2021(III)
ILR-CUT-612: 2022(I) OLR 377), Ajay Kumar Sahoo Vs.
State of Odisha and others , reported in 121 (2016) CLT
597, Sidhanta Dalai Vs. State of Odisha and others ,
reported in MANU/OR/1519/2025 and Gunduri Singh
Vs. State of Odisha and others , reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine Ori 3705 .
7. However, to counter the submissions made by
the learned Advocate General so also stand taken in the
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3, Mr. Dalai,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on a recent
Page 16 of 47
judgment of this Court in Manamati Pujari (supra),
submitted that a similar stand was taken in the said case
before the learned Single Judge. Though, vide order dated
13.10.2025, W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2025 was dismissed
accepting such stand of the State, being challenged in
W.A. No.1721 of 2025, the Division Bench took a view
that in absence of evidence and material to support the
contention that the envelope sent by certificate of posting
had contained accompaniments of the notice, i.e., copies
of requisition and proposed resolution for No Confidence
Motion, on the basis of weight of the envelope sent
through post, one cannot hurriedly jump to the
assumption that the said envelope contained the notice,
copies of the requisition and proposed resolution.
7.1. Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
drawing attention of this Court to the contents of
representations of the Petitioner at Annexures-3 and 5 of
the writ petition, further submitted that, in the Affidavit
filed by the State, it has not been specifically denied as to
the averments made in the writ petition regarding service
of notice dated 27.07.2026 on the illiterate old father of
Page 17 of 47
the Petitioner without copies of the enclosures. So far as
sending the enclosures along with notice dated
27.07.2026 through post, even though representations
were given on 03.08.2026 and 06.08.2026 alleging non-
receipt of enclosures, neither any reply was given in
response to such representations disputing the
allegations, nor copies of requisition as well as proposed
resolution were supplied to the Petitioner. In the Affidavit
filed by the State, simply it has been alleged to have been
supplied the copies of the requisition as well as proposed
resolution, relying on the bulk booking receipts showing
booking of 27 numbers of articles and weight of each
postal article to be 42 grams, which is not acceptable in
view of the judgment of the division Bench in Manamati
Pujari (supra).
7.2. Relying on the recent Full Bench judgment in
Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra), Mr. Dalai, learned
Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that, in view of
the mandate under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964,
supplying copies of the requisition as well as proposed
resolution along with the notice, as well as clear 15 days‟
Page 18 of 47
notice is mandatory and not directory, as has been
incorrectly argued by the learned Advocate General as
well as Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, relying on the
judgment of this Court in Gunduri Singh (supra).
Points to be dealt
8. From the pleadings on record, arguments
advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the
judgments cited before this Court, the following points
emerge to be answered in the present writ petition.
i) Whether requirement of giving 15 clear
days‟ notice along with copies of the proposed
resolution and requisition, as contemplated
under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964, are
mandatory?
ii) How such fifteen (15) clear days‟ notice is to
be calculated?
iii) In the present case, is there any shortfall
in the notice period? If so, whether the same shall
invalidate the No Confidence Motion, despite the
provision enshrined under Clause(e) of Section
24(2) of the Act, 1964?
Page 19 of 47
iv) Is there any material on record, more
particularly in the Affidavit filed by the State, to
demonstrate before this Court regarding
fulfillment of the prerequisites, as contemplated
under Section 24(2)(c) and (d) of the Act, 1964?
v) Whether stand of the State-Opposite Party
No.3 regarding supply of copies of the requisition
and proposed resolution along with the notice
dated 27.07.2026, allegedly sent through Speed
Post, is acceptable on the basis of weight of the
envelopes sent to the Members, including of the
Petitioner, and inference can be drawn and
acceptable to meet the requirements under
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964?
8.1. Before dealing with the aforesaid issues, since
the learned Counsel for the parties heavily relied on the
text of Section 24(1) and Clause (a) to (e) of Sub-section
(2) of the Act, 1964, it would be apt to reproduce below
the said provisions for ready reference:
“24. Vote of no confidence against
Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch :– (1) Where at a
meeting of the Grama Panchayat specially
convened by the Subdivisional Officer in that
Page 20 of 47
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 requisition shall be addressed to the
Subdivisional 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 Resolution-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;
xxxx xxxx xxxx”
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 21 of 47
9. So far as Point No.(i) , judgments of Full
Bench in Sarat Padhi (supra), so also Nabanita Kapat
Patra (supra) are relevant. Before the Full Bench in
Sarat Padhi (supra), the reference arose from a
challenge to a “No Confidence Meeting” on the ground
that the Petitioner received the notice dated 3rd
th
September, 2026 only on 12 September, 1985, for a
th
meeting to be held on 24 September, 1985. The Full
Bench considered whether 15 clear days‟ requirement
under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964 was mandatory so
also considered the correctness of the Division Bench
judgment in Debaraj Mallik (supra).
The majority view in the said judgment
divided the notice scheme into three parts, i.e., (i)
requirement of giving the notice, (ii) fixing the margin of
time between the date of the notice and the date of the
meeting, and (iii) service of notice on the members. It
was held that the first two parts are mandatory. But,
the third part, i.e., the mode of service or the failure by
any member to receive the notice is directory. Thus, it
Page 22 of 47
was held that breach of the first two parts invalidates
the meeting without proof of prejudice; short
service/non-receipt does not automatically invalidate it,
particularly where prejudice is not established.
9.1. The reference in Nabanita Kapat Patra
(supra) before the Full Bench arose, because two
Division Bench decisions had taken apparently
different approaches to whether the requisition and the
proposed resolution had to accompany the notice. The
impugned notice was accompanied by the requisition,
but not the draft/proposed resolution. The Full Bench
held that Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964 requires the
notice to be accompanied by both the documents and
that the requirement is mandatory. Such reasoning
rested upon the statutory words, the rule against
rendering words otiose, the serious consequence of
removing a directly elected Sarpanch, the special
statutory nature of election/removal law, and the need
to follow the prescribed procedure.
9.2. An express overruling would ordinarily
require an unmistakable declaration that the earlier
Page 23 of 47
full Bench decision is incorrect, no longer good law or
is overruled. The judgment in Nabanita Kapat Patra
(supra) contains no such declaration regarding Sarat
Padhi (supra). Its discussion of conflicting precedence
in para-4.6 is expressly directed to the case of
Prahallad Dalai (supra) and Pramod Kumar Sahu
(supra).
9.3. In Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra), the Full
Bench in para-4.4 held that Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-
Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 1964 employ the
word „shall‟ and the procedure is mandatory. Para-4.3
(ii) of the said judgment also states that the notice
should be for 15 clear days. Read in isolation, those
observations might be invoked to contend that every
element of Section 24(2)(c), including the period
available after issuance of notice, is mandatory. The
actual question before the Bench was whether omission
of the proposed resolution from the notice shall
invalidate the notice. The said judgment repeatedly
focuses on that omission. It never decided whether a
Member, who receives notice less than 15 clear days‟
Page 24 of 47
must, without proof of prejudice, have the meeting
invalidated. Hence, the aforesaid two judgments of Full
Bench can therefore be harmonized.
9.4. Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra) establishes
that notice must be accompanied by the requisition
and the proposed resolution, whereas, Sarat Padhi
(supra) establishes the consequence of different defects,
i.e., short service and non-receipt, subject to the
distinctions drawn in that judgment. Accordingly, this
Court is of the view that where the defect is absence of
the proposed resolution/requisition, the Full Bench
judgment in Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra) shall
govern such defect. Where the defect is merely short
service of notice, the Full Bench judgment in Sarat
Padhi (supra) remains directly relevant authority on
the supplied materials.
9.5. Admittedly, the Full Bench, while deciding
the case of Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra), the
previous Full Bench judgment in Sarat Padhi (supra)
was not brought to its notice. This Court is of the view
that the later judgment does not expressly overrule the
Page 25 of 47
former. Therefore, to the extent the present case
concerns absence of proposed resolution/requisition, it
shall be governed by the Full Bench judgment in
Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra); to the extent it
concerns only short service, Sarat Padhi (supra)
remains the directly applicable Full Bench authority.
9.6. So far as non-supply of requisition and the
proposed resolution, the Full Bench in Nabanita
Kapat Patra (supra) held as follows:
“4.4. As to whether Section 24(2)(c) of the
Act is mandatory:
(i) The bone of contention between the
parties is as to the meaning of clause (c) of Sub-
Section (2), which inter alia states that the Sub-
Divisional Officer, on requisition, „shall give
notice‟ to all the Members of Panchayat, „along
with a copy of the requisition and of the
proposed resolution‟ . Notice is not valid if it is
not accompanied by the „proposed resolution‟,
is the submission of Appellant‟s counsel,
whereas notice is not vitiated merely because
copy of „proposed resolution‟ did not
accompany it, is the retort of counsel
representing the private Respondents. Both
they rely upon certain decisions which we
would advert to, a little later. We agree with
the proposition of Appellant‟s counsel
because clauses (a) (b) (c) & (d) of Sub-
Section (2) of Section 24 textually employ
the word „shall‟, there being no scope for
reading it as „may‟, regard being had to
the serious implications such as, if the
Motion succeeds, Sarpanch would be
ousted from office once for all and he
would not retain membership too.
Page 26 of 47
4.5. Election law is what the statute enacts:
(i) Sub-Sections (1) & (2) of Section 24 of the Act
in a sense enact a specific procedure for ousting
inter alia an elected Sarpanch. The decision on
No Confidence Motion is to be taken by secret
ballot, as is mentioned in the impugned notice.
Thus, on the floor of Panchayat, the elected
Members cast their votes in the No Confidence
Motion, which if succeeds, the Sarpanch will be
ousted from office. Therefore, these provisions
constitute a kind of election law relating to
removal of Sarpanch by due process. Ordinarily,
law relating to election is, what the statute says
it to be, namely, the 1964 Act, herein. In Jyoti
3
Basu v. Debi Ghosal , it is observed as under:
“A right to elect, fundamental though it is to
democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a
fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It
is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the
right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an
election. Outside of statute, there is no right to
elect, no right to be elected and no right to
dispute an election. Statutory creations they
are, and therefore, subject to statutory
limitation. An Election petition is not an action
at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory
proceeding to which neither the Common Law
nor the principles of Equity apply but only those
rules which the statute makes and applies. It is
a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction
has always to be exercised in accordance with
the statutory creating it. Concepts familiar to
Common Law and Equity must remain
strangers to Election Law unless statutorily
embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them
on considerations of alleged policy because
policy in such matters as those, relating to the
trial of election disputes, is what the statute
lays down.…”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.7. So far short service of notice, paragraph
No.18 of the Full Bench judgment in Sarat Padhi
(supra), being relevant, is reproduced below:
Page 27 of 47
18. On a circumspection of the various
“
authorities discussed above dealing with the
analogous provisions in different statutes, I
would now proceed to record my own
conclusions: -
The scheme of the notice contemplated
under Section 24(2)(c) may be divided into three
parts - (i) requirement of giving the notice, (ii)
fixing the margin of time between the date of
the notice and the date of the meeting, and (iii)
service of notice on the members, I am of the
view, which is also conceded by the learned
Advocate General, that the first two parts,
namely, the duty to issue the notice and the
margin of clear 15 days between the date
of the notice and the date of the meeting,
are mandatory. In other words, if there is
any breach of these two conditions, then
the meeting will be invalid without any
question of prejudice. But the third
condition, i.e., the mode of service or the
failure by any member to receive the notice
at all or allowing him less than 15 clear
days before the date of the meeting, will
not render the meeting invalid. This
requirement is only directory. This is also
based on a sound public policy as in that event
any delinquent Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch can
frustrate the consideration of the resolution of
non-confidence against him by tactfully dealing
or avoiding the service of the notice on him and
thus frustrate the holding of the meeting. The
legislation has also accordingly taken care to
provide in unequivocal terms a provision to
obviate such contingencies by incorporating
Clause (e) to Sub-section (2) of Section 24.”
( Emphasis supplied)
9.8. Hence, on conjoint reading of both the Full
Bench judgments, it is amply clear that giving 15 clear
days‟ notice along with copies of the proposed
resolution and requisition, as contemplated under
Page 28 of 47
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964, are mandatory. But
the mode of service of notice and receipt of such notice
are directory, meaning thereby, if the notice has been
given with 15 clear days‟ before the date fixed for No
Confidence Motion, non-receipt of the said notice by
any Member or any shortfall of 15 clear days‟ in
between the date of notice and the date fixed for the No
Confidence Motion, counting the said period of 15 days
from the date of receipt of such notice, shall not annul
the said No Confidence Motion. Point No.(i) is answered
accordingly.
10. So far as Point No. (ii) , regarding calculation
of 15 clear days‟ of notice, which is mandatory, relying
on the Full Bench judgment in Sarat Padhi (supra),
the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Heeramani
Munda Vs. The Collector, Keonjhar & others ,
reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Ori 86 : (2005) 99 CLT
180, held as follows:
On examination of the aforesaid decisions
“8.
specifically the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Sarat Padhi v. State of
Orissa(supra) it is clear that the margin of
clear 15 days‟ time between the date of
notice and the date of meeting is mandatory
.
Page 29 of 47
This Court further held that if there is breach of
that condition, then the meeting will be invalid
without any question of prejudice. However, the
Court further observed that the mode of
service or failure by any member to receive
the notice or allowing less than 15 clear
days before the date of meeting will not
render the meeting invalid . The specific case of
the petitioner is that if the date of notice and the
date of meeting fixed are excluded, then the notice
period shall be thirteen days as is clear from
Annexure-1 itself. Annexure-1 is also very clear to
the effect that the Sub-Collector on 15.7.2004
issued notice fixing the date of no confidence
motion to 30th July 2004. If the date of notice
and the date of meeting fixed are excluded
as per the decision of this Court in the case
of Smt. Susila Sahani v. State of Orissa
(supra) fifteen days clear notice had not been
given and this provision being mandatory,
there has been violation of the same and the
notice for no confidence motion is of no
effect. We accordingly allow the Writ Application
and quash the order passed by the Collector.
Keonjhar in Annexure-3”
( Emphasis supplied)
10.1. Similarly, in Nilambar Majhi Vs. Secy, to
Govt. of Orissa Panchayat Raj Deptt., reported in
2005 SCC OnLine Ori 247 : (2006) 101 CLT 473 , the
Division Bench, relying on the Judgment in Smt.
Heeramani Munda (supra), and Full Bench Judgment
in Sarat Chandra Padhi (supra), held as follows:
“ 7. In the above noted citation the term „give
notice‟ have been interpreted by this Court as
issue of notice and in that respect the date of
signing of the notice by the Sub-Collector and the
date of receipt of the notice by the Member
concerned are irrelevant. Thus the notice period
Page 30 of 47
would mean, clear 15 days‟ time between the
issue of notice and the date of the meeting. In the
above noted two decisions it has been further
clarified that in computing period of 15 days, the
date of issue of notice and the date of the meeting
are to be excluded. In the present case the
notice was admittedly issued on 16.5.2005
and the meeting was held on 30.5.2005.
Once 16th & 30th May, 2005 are excluded
then the notice period becomes less than 15
days . The explanation of the Opp. Parties in this
regard is that the Sub-Collector had signed the
notice on 13.5.2005, but the notice was
despatched on 16.5.2005 as the 14th & 15th
May, 2005 were public holidays. Section 24(2)(C)
nowhere contemplates that signing of notice
by the Sub-Collector would amount to issue
of the notice. So the explanation of the Opp.
Parties does not satisfy to the requirement of
mandatory provision relating to the required
period of notice.
8. Whether participation of the petitioner in the
meeting would estop him from challenging the no
confidence motion, even though 15 days clear
notice was not there, was discussed in the case of
Sarat Chandra Padhi (supra). There it was
explained that the scheme of notice contemplated
under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act can be divided
into three parts, i.e., (i) requirement of giving
notice; (ii) fixation of margin of time in between the
date of notice and the date of meeting and (iii)
service of notice on the members. The full Bench
held that the first two parts are mandatory while
the third part is directory. It was thus, held that
if the margin of clear 15 days between the
date of notice and the date of meeting is not
there, then the notice and the resolution
passed in that meeting would be illegal and
invalid even if the petitioner participates in
the meeting and he is not estopped from
challenging the legality of the meeting on
the ground of violation of the mandatory
provision of law. So, the content of
paragraph-20 of the judgment of the Full
Bench relied by Learned Addl. Government
Advocate is of no help as that observation
was meant for the period between date of
Page 31 of 47
receipt of notice by the petitioner and the
date of the meeting.”
( Emphasis supplied)
10.2. However, in Nirakar Sethi Vs. State of
Odisha and others , reported in 2021 (III) ILR-CUT-612:
2022(I) OLR 377 , in the said case, though the notice
th
was dated 29 September, 2020, it was dispatched by
th
Speed Post only on 7 October, 2020. The said notice
th
was received by the Petitioner on 8 October, 2020,
thus leaving a gap of only 13 days‟ between the date of
the receipt of the notice and the date of meeting. The
Division Bench, relying on the judgment in Sarat
Padhi (supra), held as follows:
“ 15. The Court is unable to agree with the above
submissions. In Sarat Padhi ’ s case (supra) the
date on which the notice was dispatched by
Under Certificate of Posting was later than the
date on which it was signed by the Sub-divisional
Officer, thereby narrowing the time period
between the date of the meeting and the date of
receipt of the notice to less than 15 clear days.
Those facts are identical to the facts of the present
case. Therefore, it would be wrong to contend
that the 15 days‟ gap between issuance of
the notice and the date of the meeting is a
must. That requirement in terms of Section
24(2)(c) of the Act has been held to be
„directory‟ and not „mandatory‟ by the Full
Bench of this Court. This Court is bound by
the Full Bench decision in Sarat Padhi‟s case
(supra). Even otherwise, this Court is not inclined
to doubt the correctness of the said decision.”
( Emphasis supplied)
Page 32 of 47
10.3. So far as calculation of notice period of clear
15 days‟ between the issue of notice and the date of
meeting, was clearly deliberated by the Division
Benches in Nilambar Majhi (supra), so also in Smt.
Heeramani Munda (supra), which were rendered
relying on the decision of the Full Bench in Sarat
Padhi (supra). Those judgments, though were prior to
Nirakar Sethi (supra), were admittedly not brought to
the notice of the Division Bench in Nirakar Sethi
(supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for
the private Opposite Parties. Rather, in Ajay Kumar
Sahoo (supra), cited by the learned Senior Counsel for
the private Opposite Parties, the Division Bench,
relying on Sarat Padhi (supra) as well as Smt.
Heeramani Munda (supra), held as follows:
“xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Above decision makes it clear that merely the
duty of issuing the notice and the margin of
clear 15 days between the date of the notice
and the date of the meeting are mandatory
and in the event there is any breach of the
above provision, then only the meeting will
become invalid and further the mode of service
or the failure by any member to receive the notice
at all or allowing him less than 15 clear days
before the date of the meeting will not render the
Page 33 of 47
meeting invalid and this requirement is only
directory.
5. In another decision in the case between
Smt. Heeramani Munda v. The Collector, Keonjhar
and others, MANU/OR/0270/2004 : 99 (2005)
CLT 180, a Division Bench of this Court even
though sets aside notice of no-confidence, but the
said interference is only on account of no clear 15
days gap in between the date of notice and the
date of no-confidence motion taking place and
after observing that in paragraph-7, the Division
Bench of this Court again held that this 15
days clear notice must be there by excluding
the date of notice and the date of meeting.
6. We have perused the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge and observe
that the learned Single Judge taking into
account the statutory provisions as well as
the provision of law laid down by this Court
referred in the case of Sarat Padhi (supra),
has clearly arrived at the conclusion that
there is clear 15 days gap in between the
date of notice and the date of no-confidence
and thus, rightly refused to interfere with
the impugned order . The other decision cited by
Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant
having no relevancy to the present case are not
taken note of. This Court is in full agreement with
the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge and the same is hereby confirmed. In the
result, the writ appeal fails. However, there is no
order as to cost.”
( Emphasis supplied)
10.4. Similarly, in Sidhanta Dalai (supra), relied
on by the learned Senior Counsel for the private
Opposite Parties, wherein the issue was also alleged
lack of clear 15 days‟ notice, paragraphs-6.1 and 6.2 of
the said Judgment, being relevant, are reproduced
below:
Page 34 of 47
6.1. The appellant argued before the Single
“
Bench that the notice under clause(c) of sub-
section (2) of Section 24 of the OGP Act is
invalid as clear fifteen days‟ time was not
given. The Single Bench did not find such
argument to have any substance, more
particularly in the perspective of the fact that the
requisition contained the resolution passed by all
the members of the Grama Panchayat except the
appellant, who holds the post of Sarpanch. The
Single Bench further noticed the facts
emanating from the record and held that the
th
notices were issued on 16 November, 2024
to all the members indicating that the date
for convening the meeting is fixed on 6th
December, 2024, which is much beyond
fifteen days therefrom. The Single Bench
further found that the appellant received the
th
said notice, which was sent by post on 20
November, 2024, which would be evident
from the postal tracking report and,
therefore, it cannot be said that there is a
violation of the mandatory period provided
under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section
24 of the OGP Act.
6.2. If we count the clear fifteen days from
the date of receipt of the notice, it cannot be
said that the time period, as provided in the
said clause, is attracted. Even if the fifteen
days falls on the date of the meeting, yet the
technicalities should not overweigh the
substantive compliance of the provision. The
purpose of providing the period before the notice is
received and the date of holding the meeting is to
give sufficient opportunity to the Sarpanch or Naib
Sarpanch, against whom no confidence is moved.
This is one of the facets of the principles of the
natural justice. Mere technical lapses should not
be projected rigidly to negate the object and the
purpose underlying the incorporation of the
provisions relating to the no confidence motion,
but the Court should adopt such interpretative
tools, which would navigate the legislative
intention behind the incorporation thereof.”
( Emphasis supplied)
Page 35 of 47
In the aforesaid case, the notice of No
th
Confidence Motion was dated 16 November, 2024,
th
fixing the date of meeting to 6 December, 2024, which
th
was sent/dispatched by post on 20 November, 2024.
Hence, admittedly, there was a 15 clear days‟ gap
between the date of dispatch of notice and the date
fixed for No Confidence Motion.
10.5. Further, in none of the cases, including
Sarat Padhi (supra), excepting in the case of
Nilambar Majhi (supra), it has been clearly discussed
as to how such clear 15 days‟ notice period has to be
calculated and which should be the date of notice, i.e.,
date of signing of the notice or the date on which
actually the notice was dispatched under certificate of
posting/Speed Post. In Nilambar Majhi (supra),
relying on the Full Bench Judgment in Sarat Padhi
(supra) and Smt. Heeramani Munda (supra), the
Division Bench held that the date of signing of the
notice by the Sub-Collector and the date of receipt of
the notice by the Member concerned are irrelevant. It
was further held that mere signing of notice would not
Page 36 of 47
amount to issue of notice, as contemplated under
Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964. It was held that, while
computing the period of clear 15 days‟ notice, the date
of issue of notice and the date of the meeting are to be
excluded. It was further held that, so far as date of
issue of notice, even though the Sub-Collector had
signed the notice on 13.05.2005, but the notice being
th th
dispatched on 16.05.2005, 14 & 15 May, 2005 being
public holidays, would be the date of issue of the said
notice, not the date when it was signed.
10.6. It is amply clear from the judgment in
Nilambar Majhi (supra), as detailed above, the date of
issue of notice would be the date on which it was
actually dispatched, not the date of notice or the date
when it was signed. Therefore, there should be a clear
15 days‟ notice in between the date on which the notice
was dispatched by post and the date fixed for No
Confidence Motion, and both the said dates are to be
excluded while calculating clear 15 days‟ notice, which
is mandatory. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.
Page 37 of 47
11. So far as Point No.(iii) , as is revealed from
the record, the notice dated 27.07.2026 was dispatched
th th
by Speed Post on 29.07.2026. If 29 July and 13
August are excluded, it comes to 14 days in between.
There is a shortfall of fifteen clear days in between the
date of dispatch of notice, i.e., “29.07.2026”, and the
date of meeting of “No Confidence Motion”, i.e.,
“13.08.2026”, in view of the observations made by the
Division Bench in Nilambar Majhi (supra), which was
rendered referring to Full Bench Judgment in Sarat
Padhi (supra).
11.1. The Full Bench in Nabanita Kapat Patra
(supra) held as follows:
4.7.(ii) Learned Advocate lastly contended that the
“
provisions of Section 24(2) have to be harmoniously
construed, as has been done by the other Co-ordinate
Bench in Pramod Kumar Sahu supra. Rules of
harmonious construction have no scope for
application to the case, inasmuch as we do not
find any disharmony in or discordance between
clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24,
inter se . He also stressed on clause (e) of this Sub-
Section for seeking shelter thereunder. We are not
impressed, here too. Non-receipt of Notice by a
Member is one thing and giving of Notice is
another. Once notice is given, its validity has to
be adjudged in the light of what has been
prescribed inter alia under clauses (a) to (d) of
Section 24(2). Where Notice has been given by
Page 38 of 47
the Sub-Divisional Officer and it is received by
the candidate concerned, the case does not
travel to the precincts of clause (e) of Section
24(2).
(Emphasis supplied)
Hence, this Court is of the view that shortfall
in the notice period of clear 15 days, which is mandatory,
cannot be equated with issue of non-receipt of the notice
by any member, provided the same is dispatched through
post on time, which would not invalidate the proceedings
of the meeting merely on the ground of non-receipt or late
receipt of the said notice. Accordingly, the stand of the
State as well as private Opposite Parties that, in view of
the provision under Clause (e) of Section 24(2), even if
there is a shortfall in the notice period, the same shall
not annul the No Confidence Motion is not acceptable.
Point No.(iii) is answered accordingly in favour of the
Petitioner.
12. So far as Point No.(iv) & (v) , since both the
said points are interlinked, for the sake of brevity, are
dealt herewith together.
As is revealed from the representation at
Annexure-3, at running page 39 of the writ petition,
Page 39 of 47
which is dated 03.08.2026, an endorsement has been
made by the Petitioner to the effect that, though she
allegedly went to the Office of the Opposite Party No.3 on
the said date to submit the grievance petition regarding
non-supply of the proposed resolution so also requisition
along with the notice dated 27.07.2026, nobody received
the said representation. Hence, she had to send the same
by Speed Post on 04.08.2026. The State-Opposite Party
No.3 in its Affidavit has not denied the said allegation.
Further, in the said Affidavit it has not been stated as to
on receipt of the said representation vide Annexure-3,
whether the Opposite Party No.3 responded to the same
denying the allegations made therein and if so, when.
That apart, it is revealed from Annexure-4 series that
though the seal of the Sub-Collector was appearing on
the said envelope to be the sender of the said postal
article sent through Speed Post, but it was scored-out
and re-sealed as “Despatcher, Collectorate, Kendrapada”.
The said communication was received by one Suryakanta
Ojha on 03.08.2026, who happens to be the brother of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner gave a further
Page 40 of 47
representation on 06.08.2026 to the Collector,
Kendrapada indicating therein that, after receiving the
said notice dated 27.07.2026 on 03.08.2026, she found
that, though there was a mention therein that copies of
the proposed resolution and requisition form part of the
said communication, but were not supplied along with
the said notice dated 27.07.2026. Accordingly, again a
request was made to the Collector, Kendrapada, who was
alleged sender of the said postal article, to supply copies
of the proposed resolution and requisition. Neither in the
Affidavit nor in the documents enclosed to the said
Affidavit, filed by the Opposite Party No.3, it has been
mentioned as to the status of both the representations of
the Petitioner dated 03.08.2026 and 06.08.2026 and
whether any communication(s) was/were made to the
Petitioner denying the allegations made therein.
12.1. So far as the stand of the Opposite Party No.3
regarding weight of the envelope sent to the Petitioner by
Speed Post, thereby to draw an inference that such notice
was sent to her along with enclosures, i.e., proposed
resolution and requisition, a similar stand of the State
Page 41 of 47
was turned down by the Division Bench in a recent
judgment in Manamati Pujari (supra), relevant
paragraph of which is reproduced below:
We have very carefully perused the
“4.1.
original records, which learned AGA had secured
on our direction and returned the same to her.
There is evidentiary material, namely, the
certificate of posting to vouch the contention that
the notice of meeting sent by the Sub-Divisional
Officer under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has
reached the hands of appellant; however, there
is absolutely no evidentiary material to support
the contention that the envelope sent by
certificate of posting, had contained
accompaniments of the notice, namely, copies of
requisition & proposed resolution for No
Confidence. This view is supported by what A.B.
Majumder
‟s „Law Relating to Notices‟ (8th
Edition) says. It also gains support from
Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy , AIR 1918
PC 102. On the basis of weight of the
envelope sent through certificate of posting,
one cannot hurriedly jump to the
assumption that it contained notice and
copies of requisition & proposed resolution.
The letter relied upon by the learned AGA,
mentioning service of all this being a document
generated post commencement of litigation, does
not earn much credence. This aspect has not
been duly discussed in the right perspective in
the impugned order”
(Emphasis supplied)
Hence, in absence of specific denial of the
allegations of the Petitioner regarding non-receipt of
enclosures by the State in its Affidavit, coupled with the
judgment of the Division Bench in Manmati Pujari
(supra), this Court is of the view that on the basis of
Page 42 of 47
weight of the envelope sent to the Petitioner through
Speed Post, it cannot be assumed that the same
contained the notice along with copies of requisition and
proposed resolution. Accordingly, Point Nos. (iv) & (v) are
answered in favour of the Petitioner.
Observations
13. In view of the foregoing discussions so also
answer to the points, as detailed above, this Court is of
the considered view that the Opposite Party No.3 has
failed to establish due compliance with the mandatory
requirement contained in Section 24(2)(c) of the Act,
1964. The materials brought on record fall short of
demonstrating before this Court that notice dated
27.07.2026 was duly served on the Petitioner together
with the copies of the requisition and proposed resolution
as the statute mandates. That apart there is a shortfall in
15 clear days‟ notice, as detailed above. Hence, this Court
is of the view that notice dated 27.07.2026 is vitiated for
non-compliance with the mandatory provisions, as
detailed above. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated
27.07.2026 issued by the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada and
Page 43 of 47
all consequential action taken pursuant thereto are set
aside.
14. Before parting with the matter, it would be
appropriate to state here that, while dealing with the
present issue regarding legality and validity of notice of
No Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch, it has come to
the notice of this Court that almost all the writ petitions
were preferred by the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch
challenging the Motion of No Confidence, basically, on
the alleged procedural flaw of non-supply of copies of
requisition and the proposed resolution along with the
notice, so also lack of 15 clear days‟ notice in between
the date of notice and the date fixed for the Motion of No
Confidence, as provided under Clause (c) and (d) under
Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 1964.
14.1 . That apart, even if the copies of the requisition
and the proposed resolution are being sent along with the
notice by Post, a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, against
whom the Motion of No Confidence is moved by the
Members, may tactfully avoid to receive the notice, so
also deny to have received the enclosures along with the
Page 44 of 47
notice, even if the notice is served through post along
with the enclosures, to frustrate the Motion of No
Confidence against him/her taking advantage of the
views taken by the Division Bench in Manamati Pujari
(supra)
14.2. Hence, this Court considers it appropriate to
draw attention to a practical difficulty arising from the
present wording of Section 24(2)(c) and (d) of the Odisha
Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Clause (c) requires the Sub-
Divisional Officer to give notice of the meeting to the
Members, together with copies of the requisition and the
proposed resolution, at least fifteen clear days‟ before the
date fixed for the meeting; Clause (d), in turn, prescribes
dispatch of the notice by post under Certificate of Posting
and publication of a copy on the notice-board of the
Samiti at least seven days before the meeting. The
prescribed postal facility of “Certificate of Posting” is
stated to have been discontinued, creating uncertainty as
to the practicable means of complying with the statutory
text and of proving both dispatch and the contents of the
communication. A further difficulty may arise where
Page 45 of 47
receipt of the notice is established but delivery of the
accompanying requisition and proposed resolution is
disputed. These requirements serve an important
purpose; they provide advance and meaningful notice of
the proposed motion and enable the concerned persons
to participate in the process in an informed manner. The
issue, therefore, is not merely one of procedural
convenience, but of ensuring a clear, workable and
verifiable statutory procedure. It would be appropriate for
the State Government to examine, and if considered
necessary, initiate legislative action to amend Clauses (c)
and (d) of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1964, so as expressly
to prescribe an available and reliable mode or modes of
service, the manner of serving and evidencing delivery of
the notice and its enclosures, and the relationship
between dispatch, actual delivery and the requirement of
fifteen clear days‟ notice. The amendment may also
provide for an official record or certificate identifying the
documents served, the date and mode of service, and the
result of service, together with an appropriate alternative
procedure where service cannot be effected despite
Page 46 of 47
reasonable efforts. Any such provision should preserve
the statutory time safeguards and the opportunity of the
affected office-bearer and members to know the
substance of the motion in advance.
14.3. This Court makes the above observation to
invite legislative consideration; it does not purport to
substitute a different mode of service for that presently
prescribed by the Act, nor does it dilute the requirements
applicable to the proceedings under consideration.
15. With the said observation, the writ petition
stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
…….….……………………
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
th
Dated, the 28 October, 2026/Kanhu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KANHU BEHERA
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 28-Oct-2026 19:05:39
Page 47 of 47