Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 782 (ORI)

Sebati Pujari v. State of Odisha

2016-09-12

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. Chatahandi Grama Panchayat under Nabarangpur Panchayat Samiti in the district of Nabarangpur consists of fifteen wards and total number of members of the Grama Panchayat is sixteen including the appellant. In the month of February, 2012, the appellant was elected as Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat with a huge majority of votes. While continuing as such, she received notice no.470 dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure-1) from the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur regarding no confidence motion against her. In the said notice, it was mentioned that a requisition had been received on 29.04.2015 from 12 Ward Members seeking no confidence motion, for which a special meeting was to be convened on 20.05.2015 at 11 a.m. in the Chatahandi Grama Panchayat hall as per the provisions contained in Section 24(1)(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) and Dr. Gunanidhi Nayak, Block Development Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Nabarangpur would preside over the meeting. Challenging the said notice, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No. 9261 of 2015 before this Court on the grounds that the notice was issued without complying the provisions contained under Section 24(2)(a)(c) of the Act and that the minutes of the meeting dated 15.04.2015 was not the proposed resolution as per the Act. But, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.07.2016, while holding that no confidence motion requisitioned by the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur was not illegal, declined to quash the said notice and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this intra Court appeal. 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in not considering the provisions of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act as well as the ratio decided by this Court in Smt. Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa and others, 91 (2001) C.L.T. 159 and Muktamanjari Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2010 (II) OLR 473 in their proper perspective. He, further urged that the case of Jagadish Pradhan and others v. Kapileswar Pradhan and others, 1987 (1) OLR 335 as well as other cases, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge, having been decided on different context all together, are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition cannot sustain in the eye of law and, hence, interference of this Court is sought for. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition cannot sustain in the eye of law and, hence, interference of this Court is sought for. It was also urged that, while considering the case of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the judgment of this Court in Anadi Charan Das v. The State of Orissa and Ors., 36 (1970) CLT 153. 3. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions contained in Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act have been complied with in letter and spirit and, as such, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned by issuing the impugned notice dated 04.05.2015 convening the special meeting for no confidence motion against the appellant, particularly when 12 out of total 16 members had signed the resolution and there was no valid and justifiable reason for the appellant to continue as Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, while justifying the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, he urged that this Court should not interfere with the same in this appeal. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha and others, 2016 (1) CLR 559. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-respondents and upon perusal of the records, this appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties without issuing notice to the private respondents. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, undisputedly the appellant was continuing as elected Sarpanch of Chatahandi Grama Panchayat under Nabarangpur Panchayat Samiti in the district of Nabarangpur. She received a notice on 04.05.2015 from the Sub- Collector, Nabarangpur regarding no confidence motion to be moved in a special meeting to be held on 15.04.2015 on the basis of the requisition issued on 29.04.2015 in adherence to the provisions contained in Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Act. 6. Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 reads as follows: “24. 6. Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 reads as follows: “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 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 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.” 7. On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it appears that, when the Sub-Divisional Officer convened a special meeting of the Grama Panchayat and passed resolution supported by majority 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 be forthwith forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, who shall immediately on receipt of such 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 Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated such office. The sub-section (2) of Section 24 envisaged that 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 provisions mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (k). 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 and such requisition shall be addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who, 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 15 clear days before the date so fixed. 8. In consonance with the provisions contained in Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act, the impugned notice was issued by the Sub-Collector on 04.05.2015 regarding convening the special meeting on 20.05.2015 on the basis of the requisition received from 12 out of 16 members of Chatahandi Grama Panchayat under Nabarangpur Panchayat Samiti to bring no confidence motion against the appellant. Accordingly, the said special meeting was convened on 20.05.2015 at 11.00 a.m. in the Grama Panchayat Meeting Hall for voting by secret ballot as per the provisions contained in clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 under the presidentship of Dr. Gunanidhi Nayak, Block Development Officer-cum- Tahasildar, Nabarangpur, who had been authorized to preside over the meeting on behalf of the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur. Gunanidhi Nayak, Block Development Officer-cum- Tahasildar, Nabarangpur, who had been authorized to preside over the meeting on behalf of the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur. Along with the said notice, a copy of the proposed resolution and a copy of the requisition had also been appended. It is urged that the said notice does not contain the proposed resolution and, therefore, it suffers from non-compliance of the provisions contained in 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. But, as a matter of fact, it appears from the documents filed along with the writ appeal that Annexure-1 dated 04.05.2015 is the impugned notice issued by the Sub-Collector for convening a no confidence motion on the basis of Annexure-2, the requisition dated 29.04.2015 signed by 12 out of 16 Ward Members, as well as Annexure-3, the resolution dated 15.04.2015. It is alleged that Annexure-3 dated 15.04.2015 is not a resolution and, therefore, the notice issued under Annexure-1 cannot sustain in the eye of law. 9. The sole controversy, in this case, revolves round Annexure- 3 dated 15.04.2015 and it is to be seen whether said Annexure-3 can be construed as a resolution so as to comply with the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. If the outcome of the meeting held on 15.04.2015 is construed to be a resolution, then there is no iota of doubt that the action has been taken by the authority concerned in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before this Court that Annexure-3 being an outcome of a meeting held on 15.04.2015, it cannot be construed as a resolution and no action could have been taken on that basis. As such, the entire action of the authorities are not in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act, for which the notice so issued on 04.05.2015 has to be quashed. 10. As such, the entire action of the authorities are not in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act, for which the notice so issued on 04.05.2015 has to be quashed. 10. The Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar 4th Edition Volume-4 clarifies the word “resolution” as follows: “Something that is resolved or something that is determined upon.” “The expression of the opinion of the legislative body with reference to some subject or as declaration of its intention to do something.” “When a motion put before a meeting has been agreed upon, it becomes a resolution.” The meaning attached to the word “resolution” clearly specifies that, when a motion put before a meeting has been agreed upon, it becomes a resolution. Therefore, applying the said text to Annexure-3, from which it appears that on the basis of the discussion held in the meeting dated 15.04.2015 it was unanimously decided to bring a no confidence motion against the Chatahandi Grama Panchayat Sarpanch Smt. Sebati Pujari and to remove her, it can be safely construed as a “resolution” and there is no iota of doubt about the agreed terms of the members of the meeting to be termed as resolution. If that be so, then there is absolute compliance of the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(a) and (c) of the Act. Besides, the appellant has admitted in his pleading in paragraph 2 of the appeal memo stating as follows: “It has been mentioned that along with the notice a proposed resolution and a requisition are appended…..” Therefore, the notice under Annexure-1 convening the meeting of no confidence motion issued by the Sub-Collector being in compliance of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, no fault can be found with the authority. Meaning thereby, notice under Annexure-1 dated 04.05.2015, having been issued appended by the requisition dated 29.04.2015 signed by 12 out of 16 Ward Members of the Grama Panchayat together with the copy of the resolution dated 15.04.2015, giving 15 clear days before the date of holding the meeting on 20.05.2015, there was compliance of the statutory provisions. In Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha and others, 2016(1) CLR 559, this Court has held as follows: “10. In Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha and others, 2016(1) CLR 559, this Court has held as follows: “10. From the discussion supra, it is clear that- (i) no form of proforma has been prescribed either for the Notice to be issued by the Sub-Collector calling upon the members including the Sarapanch or Naib-Sarapanch to attend the meeting of No Confidence, or for the requisition to be sent by 1/3rd members of the Grama Panchayat or for the proposed resolution to be moved. (ii) If the intention of the requisite number of members is clear from the resolution adopted in the meeting held to prepare the requisition and the proposed resolution, then the said intention is to be accepted as indicatives of the fact that requisite number of members want to move a No Confidence Motion and that resolution adopted in such meeting is to be abstractly accepted as the proposed resolution. (iii) The so called proposed resolution to be moved need not be on a separate sheet or document.” Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice dated 04.05.2015 so issued by the Sub-Collector under Annexure-1. 11. On perusal of the decision in Kamala Tiria (supra), on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that Annexure-3 to the said case, which was the proposed resolution to be moved in the meeting to be specifically convened by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, having not been done in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 39(1) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, the Court held that in view of the factual position there was non-compliance of clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 39 of the Act and accordingly interfered with the same. Similarly, in Muktamanjari Sahoo (supra), as no resolution was sent to the Sub-Collector, it was held that there was no adherence to the sub-Section 24(2)(a) of the Act and, thereby, this Court interfered with the same. In Anadi Charan Das (supra), this Court held that in the meeting, which was convened, the resolution was not proposed and seconded, therefore, the resolution could not be said to have been moved, and accordingly, it had no legal validity. 12. On an analysis being made to the aforementioned judgments, it is seen that all those cases have been decided on the facts and circumstances of their own. 12. On an analysis being made to the aforementioned judgments, it is seen that all those cases have been decided on the facts and circumstances of their own. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and others, AIR 1968 SC 647 that: “A decision is only an authority for what is actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it.” In view of such settled position of law, every case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case itself. Therefore, the judgments, which have been relied upon by the appellant, are only on the basis of the facts available on the said cases, which are not applicable to the present context. Per contra, the judgments relied on by the learned Addl. Government Advocate in Prahallad Dalei (supra) is applicable to the present context because from the intention derived from the meeting dated 15.04.2015, wherein it was unanimously resolved to move a no confidence motion, and the outcome of said meeting (Annexure-3) can be construed as a resolution and abstractly accepted as proposed resolution. 13. From the materials available on record, it appears that there was sufficient compliance of the provisions law as envisaged under Section 24(2)(a)(c) of the Act and, as such, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Sub-Collector by issuing notice dated 04.05.2015 in Annexure-1 in convening special meeting on 20.05.2015 for drawing a no confidence motion against the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error so as to warrant interference by this Court in appeal. It is worthwhile to mention that in course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court that in compliance of the order passed by the leaned Single Judge, the Sub- Collector has already communicated the result of the no confidence motion to the Collector, who is in seizing over the matter. Thereby, the order, so passed by the learned Single Judge, has already been acted upon by the authority concerned. 14. Thereby, the order, so passed by the learned Single Judge, has already been acted upon by the authority concerned. 14. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice dated 04.05.2015 issued by the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur under Annexure-1, as well as the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge under Annexure-4, which is hereby confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being bereft of merits. No order as to cost.