A no-confidence requisition remains valid despite a signature-date discrepancy when the statutory member threshold is satisfied.

The petitioner, Sarpanch of Kharsanmal Gram Panchayat, challenged the notice dated 12 January 2026 convening a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against her under Section 24 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

The motion was initiated on the basis of a resolution dated 17 December 2025 and a requisition dated 5 January 2026 submitted by the Naib-Sarpanch and other Ward Members.

The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities, particularly that the resolution appeared to have been signed by the Naib-Sarpanch on 5 January 2026 despite being dated 17 December 2025.

By an interim order dated 2 February 2026, the High Court permitted the meeting to be held but restrained publication of its result without the Court’s leave.

The Block Development Officer verified the original proceedings and reported that the signatures of the Ward Members and Naib-Sarpanch were genuine and tallied with those on the resolution.

They further contended that, even excluding the Naib-Sarpanch’s signature, nine other Ward Members had signed the requisition, which exceeded the statutory minimum.

The petitioner filed no reply to these assertions.

Whether the alleged discrepancy between the date of the no-confidence resolution and the date appearing alongside the Naib-Sarpanch’s signature invalidated the resolution and the consequential notice convening the no-confidence meeting.

Whether the requisition and proposed resolution complied with the procedural requirements under Section 24(2) of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the proposed no-confidence proceedings.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, which governs no-confidence motions against a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch.

Under Section 24(2)(a), a meeting may be convened only upon a requisition signed by at least one-third of the total membership of the Gram Panchayat and accompanied by a copy of the proposed resolution.

The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4218, which settled the legal position concerning the manner of initiating and conducting a no-confidence motion.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that writ interference was unwarranted where no substantive statutory infirmity was established.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge based principally on the explanations in the counter-affidavits that the date appearing beside the Naib-Sarpanch’s signature represented the date of submission of the resolution and requisition, not necessarily the date on which the resolution was passed.

This explanation was supported by the BDO’s verification report, which found the signatures in the original proceedings register to be genuine and consistent with those on the submitted resolution.

In any event, the Court noted that nine other Ward Members had signed the requisition, and their signatures were undisputed; therefore, even excluding the Naib-Sarpanch, the statutory threshold under Section 24(2)(a) was satisfied.

The petitioner did not controvert these factual assertions.

Applying the principles in Nabanita Kapat Patra, the Court held that no legally material defect in the initiation or convening of the no-confidence proceedings had been demonstrated so as to justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The interim order restraining publication of the result was vacated.

The Court permitted the result of the no-confidence motion, if the meeting had been held, to be declared and consequential steps to be taken in accordance with the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

The petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.