Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 505 (ORI)

Padmini Nayak v. State of Orissa

2005-08-30

A.K.PARICHHA, P.K.TRIPATHY

body2005
JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the decision of the Sub-Collector, Panposh in con¬vening a meeting for record of no-confidence motion against the petitioner, who is elected Sarpanch of Zadakudar Grama Pan¬chayat in the district of Sundargarh. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Zadakudar Grama Panchayat (in short, ‘Grama Panchayat’) in the election conducted through the State Election Commissioner under Article 243-K read with Article 243-C (2) of the Constitution of India. After the result of the said election was declared on 28th Febru¬ary, 2001, the petitioner was handed over the charge of Grama Panchayat by the authorities on 10.3.2001 for a period of five years as per the provision of Article 243-E (1) of the Constitu¬tion of India. While the matter stood thus, the Sub-Collector, Panposh by his letter No.5867 dated 30.8.2004 convened a special meeting of the Grama Panchayat fixing 16.9.2004 as the date of the meeting for record of no-confidence against the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the Sub-Collector, Panposh to convene the special meeting and his letter dated 30.8.2004 under Annexure-1 calling it illegal, arbitrary, motivated and product of gross non-application of mind to both fact and law. 3. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accompanying documents Annexures 2 and 3, which were sent along with the notice dated 30th August, 2004 do not in any way satisfy the requirement of Section 24 (2) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the G.P. Act’) as the requisition Annexure- 3 was not signed by any of the Ward Members of the Panchayat and Annexure-2 is simply a forwarding letter. He claims that for non-compliance of the mandate of Section 24(2) (a) of the G.P. Act, Annexure-1 should be quashed and the special meeting held on 16.9.2004 be declared as illegal. In support of his contention Mr. Mohanty relies on a case of Smt. Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2001 Orissa-67. Learned counsel also challenges the vires of Section 24 of the G.P. Act on the plea that the provision of that Section is ultra vires the spirit of the Constitution and discriminatory in nature. In support of his contention Mr. Mohanty relies on a case of Smt. Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2001 Orissa-67. Learned counsel also challenges the vires of Section 24 of the G.P. Act on the plea that the provision of that Section is ultra vires the spirit of the Constitution and discriminatory in nature. According to him, the provision empowering the Ward Members to remove a Sarpanch directly elected by the people of the area is against the democratic norms and unconstitutional. 3. Opp.Party Nos. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that a Division Bench of this Court has already ruled that Section 24 of the G.P. Act is intra vires and does not offend the spirit of the Constitution and in view of that decision there is no scope to reopen that issue. He further submits that in the present case mandate of Section 24 (2) (a) of the G.P. Act has been fulfilled as requisition Annexure-2 has been signed by 8 out of the 12 Ward Members of the Grama Panchay¬at and Annexure-3 contains reasons for bringing the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. According to the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Kamala Tiria (supra) is not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances of the cases are different. 4. Before considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be appropri¬ate to recount relevant portion of Section 24 of the G.P. Act. “Sec. 24. Vote of no confidence against Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch - (1) Where at a meeting of the Grama Panchayat special¬ly convened by the Sub-divisional Officer in that behalf a reso¬lution 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 resolu¬tion shall forthwith be forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of the resolu¬tion publish the same on his notice-board and with effect form 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, howev¬er to the following provisions, namely :- (a) no such meeting shall be convened except on a requisi¬tion 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 Sub-Division¬al Officer; (c) the Sub-Divisional Officer on receipt of such requisi¬tion 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) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx” Section 24(2) therefore, contemplates that in convening a meeting under Sub-section (1) a requisition must be given to the Sub-Divisional Officer and such requisition should be 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 and notice of such meeting along with the copy of the resolution proposed to be moved should be served on the person against whom no confidence motion is proposed and also on all the members holding office of the Grama Panchayat at least 15 days before the date fixed for the meeting. It is alleged that Annex¬ure-2 is not a requisition and Annexure-3 is not the proposed resolution. A close reading of Annexure-2 reveals that 8 out of 12 Ward Members of the Grama Panchayat wrote to the Sub-Collec¬tor, Panposh requesting him to take necessary steps and action on the no confidence motion brought by them against the petitioner. The wordings of this document show that it is a letter of requi¬sition sent by the 8 Ward Members to the Sub-Collector. Annexure-3 was enclosed along with Annexure-2. In Annexure 3 it has been mentioned that on 11.3.2004 an urgent meeting under the Chairman¬ship of Sri Plasidas Kerketta was held with the attendance of the 8 Ward Members and that in the said meeting a thorough discussion was made about the action and manner of functioning of the peti¬tioner-Sarpanch. Annexure-3 was enclosed along with Annexure-2. In Annexure 3 it has been mentioned that on 11.3.2004 an urgent meeting under the Chairman¬ship of Sri Plasidas Kerketta was held with the attendance of the 8 Ward Members and that in the said meeting a thorough discussion was made about the action and manner of functioning of the peti¬tioner-Sarpanch. Some of the alleged misdeeds of the Sarpanch have been noted in Annexure-3 and it has been mentioned that because the Ward Members have lost confidence on the Sarpanch, the signatories proposed no confidence motion against the Sar¬panch. Request was also made in this document to the Sub-Collector to take steps under Section 24 of the G.P. Act. Annex¬ure-3 can therefore, be broadly accepted as proposed resolution, which the signatories-members intended to carry out in the meet¬ing to be held on their requisition. Since Annexure-3 was sent as enclosure with Annexure-2, signature of the Ward Members on the document was not essential. Moreover, Section 24(2)(a) simply says that the requisition is to be signed by at least one third of the total membership of the Grama Panchayat and that a copy of the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting is to be en¬closed. Section 24 nowhere says that such copy of the proposed resolution is to be signed by the members giving the requisition. 5. In Smt. Kamala Tiria’s case (supra) the requisition for convening the meeting to record want of confidence was not signed by the requisite number of members, but was signed by one member in a representative capacity. The resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting was not enclosed to the requisition. Some of the members, who were shown as signatories to the requisition, denied that they were ever present in the emergency meeting and some nominated members who had no right of voting were also allowed to remain present at the meeting held for recording the no confi¬dence motion. For all these lacunae the resolution passed regard¬ing want of confidence was declared null and void. The ratio of the said case in no way applies to the present case as the facts and circumstances involved in that case is totally different form this case. In the present case 8 out of the 12 members of the Grama Panchayat have signed the requisition Annexure-2 and copy of the proposed resolution Annexure-3 was also enclosed with Annexure-2. The ratio of the said case in no way applies to the present case as the facts and circumstances involved in that case is totally different form this case. In the present case 8 out of the 12 members of the Grama Panchayat have signed the requisition Annexure-2 and copy of the proposed resolution Annexure-3 was also enclosed with Annexure-2. So, the mandates of Section 24(2)(a) of the G.P. Act was substantially complied with. 6. The vires of Section 24 has been challenged by the petitioner. But it has already been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagabat Sahoo v. Collector, Angul and others 2005(I) CLR-606 that the provision of Section 24 is neither ultra vires the constitution of India nor unreasonable or discriminatory. We find no reason to differ form the said ruling. The plea of the petitioner that Section 24 of the G.P. Act is ultra vires the Constitution is accordingly not tenable. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons we do not find any justi¬fication to quash the notice dated 30.8.2004 issued by the Sub-Collector, Panposh convening a meeting on 16.9.2004 for recording of no confidence motion against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly without any merit and is dismissed. Consequentially the interim order passed on 13.9.2004 in Misc. Case No.9581 of 2004 not to give effect to the decision taken on the no confi¬dence motion is also vacated. There will be no order as to costs. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.