MAYABATI MUNDA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010064922026
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
------------------
Smt. Mayabati Munda Petitioner
….
-versus-
1. State of Odisha,
represented by the
Secretary to Government,
Panchayatiraj Department,
Loka Seva Bhawan,
Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda
2. Collector, Sambalpur
3. Sub-Collector, Kuchinda,
Sambalpur.
4. Mahendra Jhankar
5. Suratha Majhi
6. Prabati Sahu
7. Sabita Tandia
8. Surekha Mirdha
9. Patita Kanduluna
10. Dayamani Dang
11. Surubui Naik
12. Annapurna Behera
13. Brundabati Munda
Opposite Parties
….
Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate
For Petitioner :
For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Adv.(O.P.
1 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
Nos.4 to 13)
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 13.07.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29.08.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State
(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3), and Mr. Rath,
learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Party
Nos.4 to 13.
1. The writ petition has been filed at the
behest of the Sarpanch of Kharsanmal Gram
Panchayat, assailing the notice at Annexure-1
dated 12.01.2026 for considering the ‘No
Confidence Motion’ against her in terms of
1
Section 24 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act,
1
24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib -
Sarpanch :– (1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat
specially convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a
2 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
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
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,
3 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
1964. On the strength of the requisition as well
as the resolution moved by the Naib Sarpanch
along with ten other Ward Members.
2. The essence of the submission of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there
has been patent violation of the procedure laid
down in passing the resolution dated 17.12.2025
as well as the requisition dated 05.01.2026 at
Annexures-2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, it is
stated that the consequential steps taken for
convening the meeting for considering the ‘No
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 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
Confidence Motion’ are non est in the eye of law
and liable to be set aside.
3. It is apt to note here that, taking into
account the submissions of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, by order dated 02.02.2026,
while issuing notice in I.A. No.1987 of 2026, this
Court, by order of the even date, directed that
the meeting for considering the motion of ‘No
Confidence’ against the Sarpanch of Kharsanmal
Gram Panchayat may take place, but the result
thereof shall not be published without the leave
of this Court.
4. The interim order is still in vogue.
5. During the pendency of the matter before
this Court, the Naib Sarpanch and other Ward
Members, at whose instance the motion for ‘No
Confidence’ was initiated, sought to intervene
and, by order dated 10.03.2026 in I.A. No.4608
5 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
of 2026, their intervention was allowed and
impleaded as Opposite Party Nos.4 to 13.
6. In opposing the prayer of the Petitioner
regarding the alleged infraction of the procedure
leading to the convening of the meeting for
considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’, counter
affidavits have been filed by the State–Opposite
Party No.3 as well as the Naib Sarpanch and
Ward Members, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 13.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate,
Mr. Ray, referring to the counter affidavit filed by
the State, submits that there is no infraction of
1
Section 24 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act,
1964 in passing the resolution and the
requisition.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner harped
on the alleged discrepancy in the dates of passing
the resolution and signature of the Naib
Sarpanch. It was submitted that since a
6 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
resolution is purported to have been passed on
17.12.2025 and has been signed on 05.01.2026,
the very genuineness of the resolution is under
cloud and basing upon such resolution a
Sarpanch, who is elected on the basis of popular
mandate ought not to be unseated.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State
submits that to allay any apprehension in this
regard and to ensure transparency in the
procedure adopted, by order dated 05.01.2026,
the BDO was directed to verify the signatures of
the requisitionists of the ‘No Confidence Motion’.
The same is on record at Annexure-A/3 and,
pursuant to the same, after verification of the
resolution and requisition, a report was submitted
by the BDO regarding the genuineness of the
signatures.
7 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
The extract of the report submitted by the
BDO is quoted hereunder for convenience of
reference:
“xxx xxx xxx
With reference to the letter on the
subject cited above, I am writing in response
to your request regarding the verification and
genuineness of the signature of the concerned
Ward Members and Naib-Sarpanch of
Kharsanmal G.P. in connection to the initiation
of No-confidence Motion against Sarpanch,
Kharsanamal G.P.
In this regard, the original Minutes of
Meeting (MoM) or Proceeding Register has
been thoroughly examined. Upon verification,
it is found that the signatures recorded in the
said Register are genuine and tally with the
signatures appended in the Resolution
submitted for the No-Confidence Motion.
xxx xxx xxx”
8. In the counter affidavit filed at the behest
of the requisitionists, the stand of the Petitioner
that the resolution dated 17.12.2025, having
been signed by the Naib Sarpanch on
05.01.2026, cannot be said to be a resolution in
1
terms of the provisions contained in Section 24
8 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, has
been answered.
Paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed at
their behest, which is germane for adjudication,
is quoted hereunder for convenience of reference;
That in reply to the averments made
“8.
in Para-8(b) of the writ petition, it is
humbly submitted that the contents of the
resolution revels that the Naib-Sarapanch,
namely, Mahendra Jhankar Presided over
the said meeting dtd. 17.12.2025, so it
may not be true that he has signed the
resolution on dtd. 05.01.2026. In fact the
resolution and the copy of the requisition
were submitted on dtd. 05.01.2026 by the
all the requisitionist ward members
including the Naib-Sarapanch and it seems
that since the same was submitted on dtd.
05.01.2026, the said date has been put by
him on the resolution. But it may be
appropriate to submit here that the Naib-
Sarapanch is one of the requisitionist ward
members and for the sake of arguments,
even if the said signature is disputed for
9 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
the above reason, still then the resolution
under Annexure-2 is to be treated as valid
resolution as there is no dispute pertaining
to the signatures of other ward members
and 9 other ward members have signed,
excluding the Naib-Sarapanch, Mahendra
Jhankar and the said number is more than
the required number as contemplated
U/s.24(2)(a) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat
Act, 1964 .”
8-A. Paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed
by the State germane for just adjudication is
quoted hereunder;
“10. That, in reply to the averments made
in para-8(b) of the writ petition, it is
humbly submitted that the contents of the
resolution reveals that the Naib-Sarpanch,
namely, Mahendra Jhankar, presided over
the said meeting dated 17.12.2025, so it
may not be true that he has signed the
resolution on dated 05.01.2026. In fact the
resolution and the copy of the requisition
were submitted on dated 05.01.2026 by all
the requisitionist Ward Members, including
the Naib-Sarpanch, and it seems that since
the same was submitted on 05.01.2026,
the said date has been put by him on the
10 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
resolution. But it may be appropriate to
submit here that the Naib-Sarpanch is one
of the requisitionist Ward Members and for
the sake of argument, even if the said
signature is disputed for the above reason,
still then the resolution under Annexure-2
is to be treated as valid resolution as there
is no dispute pertaining to the signatures of
other ward members and 9 other ward
members have signed, excluding the Naib-
Sarapanch, Mahendra Jhankar and the said
number is more than the required number
as contemplated U/s.24 (2)(a) of the
Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964.”
8-B. It is apt to note that no reply has been
submitted by the Petitioner qua the stand of the
State as well as the requisitionists noted in the
preceding paragraphs.
9.
So far as the modality of seeking a ‘No
Confidence Motion’ is concerned, the same is no
longer res integra and has been settled by the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
11 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector ,
2
Kandhamal .
10. Considering the rival stands on the said
count, more particularly as stated in paragraph-
10 of the counter affidavit filed by the State as
well as that of the requisitionists in paragraph-8
quoted hereinabove, in the light of the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Nabanita
2
Kapat Patra (supra) , this Court does not find
any merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that there is any
infirmity in the convening of the ‘No Confidence
Motion’ against the Petitioner so as to warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its
plenary jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition,
being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
11. The interim order stands vacated.
2
Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal, 2025 SCC OnLine
Ori 4218.
12 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026
12.
The result of ‘No Confidence motion’, if so
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. No costs.
(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 18:45:31
13 13
Page of
W.P.(C). No.3082 of 2026