Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 468 (ORI)

Suprava Samal v. State of Odisha

2015-08-07

SANJU PANDA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. 1. The short question involved in this Writ Petition whether the Notice No. 724 dated 22.05.2015 issued by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur - opposite party No. 3 under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 fixing the meeting for moving No-Confidence Motion without fixing the place of meeting is valid and sustainable. The petitioner was elected as Sarpancha of Taliha Grama Panchayat under Dasarathpur Panchayat Samiti in the district of Jajpur. The total number of members of the Grama Panchayat including the petitioner is twenty one and the petitioner is continuing as Sarpancha since the month of February, 2012 and also discharging her duties accordingly. While matter stood thus, 14 members of the said Grama Panchayat passed a resolution to move No Confidence Motion against the present petitioner and they have issued the requisition to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur - opposite party No. 3. On receipt of a copy of the resolution as well as requisition, opposite party No. 3 issued the impugned notice after due verification of the signatures of the Ward Members. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the impugned notice opposite party No. 3 has specified the date and time of the meeting without mentioning the place of meeting as required under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He further submitted that 15 days time as provided under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act has not been given from the date of the corrigendum issued by opposite party No. 3 and only after two days the meeting was held. Therefore, the impugned notice as well as the consequential notice for No Confidence Motion is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions reported in 2005 (II) OLR 659 and 1988 (I) OLR 76. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that a corrigendum was issued by opposite party No. 3 on 08.6.2015 and the same was duly served on the concerned Executive Officer of Taliha Grama Panchayat. Therefore, the requirement of the statutory provisions is fulfilled and since the -corrigendum is only issued as a curative measure, no illegality has been committed by opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the requirement of the statutory provisions is fulfilled and since the -corrigendum is only issued as a curative measure, no illegality has been committed by opposite party No. 3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No. 3 stating that as the place of meeting was not clearly reflected in the notice, the same was issued by a corrigendum rectifying the omission in the impugned notice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 4 to 17, who are the members of the Grama Panchayat, moved the resolution of No-Confidence Motion and issued requisition to opposite party No. 3, also supported the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel. It is submitted that the impugned notice issued by opposite party No. 3 clearly reflects that a meeting of the Grama Panchayat is to be held on 10.6.2015 at about 9 A.M. and the meeting of the Grama Panchayat obviously to be held in the premises of the Grama Panchayat. In view of the above, the place of meeting was implied in the notice and the statutory requirements are fulfilled. In the meantime the No Confidence Motion has already been moved, however, result of the same has not been published due to interim order passed by this Court and the same is required to be published. 5. In the case of Nilambar Majhi v. Secretary to Government of Orissa Panchayat Raj Deptt. and others reported in 2005 (II) OLR 659 , a Division Bench of this Court held that 15 days clear notice must be there and the date of meeting fixed for No Confidence Motion are to be excluded in computing the notice period of 15 days. Non compliance of the same, the No-Confidence Motion and the consequence thereof is invalid and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In the case of Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa and others reported in 1988 (I) OLR 80 a Division Bench of this Court held that the scheme of the notice contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 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. The first two parts are mandatory but the third condition i.e. the mode of service of 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 and based on a sound public policy. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that in the present case the question is whether the aforesaid 15 days to be calculated again from the date of corrigendum issued by the opposite party No. 3 or as the corrigendum was issued only statutory requisition of 15 days from that date for the meeting as stipulated under Section 24(2)(C) of the Act is necessary. The meaning and application of the word 'corrigendum' has been considered by the Courts time and again. It was held that corrigendum is issued to correct a mistake in the notification. Therefore, it would relate back to the date of issuance of the original notification. In view of the settled position that a corrigendum can be issued only to correct typographical error, accidental slip or omission therein, it is meant to correct such mistake (See (2000) 5 SCC 765 , 92 STC 571 - Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dunlop India Ltd.). The place of meeting was implied in the impugned notice and corrigendum was issued accordingly by opposite party No. 3 on 6.8.2015 to rectify the mistake. Therefore again 15 days time need not be given from the date of corrigendum issued, which was made as a curative measure. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no error apparent of law on the face of the record. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the interim order dated 03.6.2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 10025 of 2015 directing that No Confidence Motion may continue but the result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court stands vacated and the Sub-Collector, Jajpur - opposite party No. 3 is directed to publish the result of the No Confidence Motion and take consequential steps on production of certified copy of this order. The Writ Petition along with Misc. The Writ Petition along with Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.