JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Annexure-3 to this petition passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj thereby taking a decision for removal of the petitioner from the post of the Sarapanch for his remaining absent in the meeting for three consecutive ordinary meetings held during a period of four months with effect from the date of the last meeting he failed to attend. 2. Short background involved in the case is that while the petitioner was continuing as Sarpanch of Managobinda Grama Panchayat, he suffered from some physical ailments, for the advice of the Doctor treating him, he remained absent for a long period and on his recovery when he came to know that he is implicated falsely as an accused in G.R. Case No. 41 of 2013 pending in the court of J.M.F.C., Baisinga, he was arrested and forwarded by Baisinga Police Station, as a result he remained in custody from 12.2.2014 to 12.4.2014. He could only be released under the direction of this Court in BLAPL No.372 of 2014 on 12.4.2014. Soon after release, he came to know that the Naib-Sarpanch has been entrusted the duty of Sarpanch in his place and it is at this stage, he also came to know that he had attended disqualification under the provisions of Section 25 (2) (b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. In the meantime, the petitioner received a show cause notice in the disqualification proceeding under Section 26 (2) of the Act undertaken by the Collector. Appearing in the proceeding, the petitioner submitted that he had bona fide reasons in not attending the meetings. Further, the petitioner also raised an objection on the maintainability of such notice in absence of any notice in terms of Rules 227 and 228 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968. Thus, it is claimed that there is no disqualification attended by him and the proceeding should be held illegal. This proceeding was concluded vide order under Annexure-3 holding that the petitioner has in fact attended disqualification on attraction of provision under Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. 3. Thus, it is claimed that there is no disqualification attended by him and the proceeding should be held illegal. This proceeding was concluded vide order under Annexure-3 holding that the petitioner has in fact attended disqualification on attraction of provision under Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Collector has failed in appreciating the objection raised by the petitioner in as much as there is no deliberate absence in the meetings held in the Samiti and further the statute required mandatory notice involving any meeting in the Samiti and in absence of notice, the petitioner could not have been held to have attended the disqualification under the provisions of Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. Referring to its reply to the notice for disqualification, the petitioner while demonstrating the objection raised in the proceeding, submitted that the Collector has failed in appreciating the objection raised by the petitioner and thereby arrived at wrong and illegal finding under Annexure-3. 4. Further on the allegation so far it relates to the petitioner’s not attending the meetings dtd.30.11.2013, 16.12.2013, 16.1.2014 & 16.2.2014 learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that on 16.2.2014 the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with a criminal case. Therefore, it was not possible on his part to attend the meetings on the aforesaid date. So far the other three dates are concerned, referring to his response in the objection available under Annexure-2 to this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the provisions contained in Rule 227 & 228 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1968, it becomes mandatory on the part of the Sarapancha or the Naib Sarapancha to give at least seven clear days notice of the meetings of Gram Panchayat and the notice must be served on every member. For the specific plea taken in the show cause, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector though has taken into account the submission of the petitioner but has not dealt with the same in the impugned order. For the specific plea taken in the show cause, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector though has taken into account the submission of the petitioner but has not dealt with the same in the impugned order. For non-consideration of this aspect and further for noncompliance of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 227 & 228 of the Rules, 1968, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the impugned order suffers and ought to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Sri Digambara Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos.2 to 6 while objecting to each of the contentions raised by Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner himself was a Sarapanch, therefore, there was no requirement of notice on the petitioner. Further, referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the above opposite parties, learned counsel also contended that since the petitioner himself convened the meeting on 30.11.2013 by virtue of the meeting dated 22.11.2013 the petitioner was verymuch aware about the date of the meeting and further since the petitioner was still continuing in the post of Sarapanch, the meeting conducted on the other two dates did not require any notice on the Sarapanch. Under the circumstances, Sri Digambar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 6 contended that neither there is any violation of the statutory provisions in asking disqualification of the petitioner as a Sarapanch nor the order passed by the Collector in disqualifying the petitioner under the provision contained in Subsection 2 of Section 26 of the Act suffers on any count. 6. Learned State Counsel though not supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the private opposite parties but for the reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the Collector attempted to justify the same. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the moot question to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether there was any requirement of notice following the provisions contained in Rule 227 & 228 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 to the petitioner before each of the meeting or not? There is no dispute that the petitioner still remain as a member even after he is elected as a Sarapanch. There is no dispute that the petitioner still remain as a member even after he is elected as a Sarapanch. There also remain no doubt that for long absence of the petitioner, the Naib Sarapanch was discharging the role of the Sarapanch at the relevant point of time. There also remain no doubt that the petitioner was absent from the village at the relevant time. Now coming to discuss on the mandatory requirement of the Rule 227 and 228 of the Rules, 1968, this Court finds Rule 227 & 228 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 reads as follows:- “227. Notice of meetings-(1) At least seven clear days’ notice of ordinary meeting of Grama Panchayat shall be given. (2) A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the concerned Block Development Officer. 228. (i) The notice of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat shall be served on every member. (ii) The Secretary after taking approval of the Sarpanch shall circulate the notice in a Notice Book which shall be signed by each of the Ward Members: Provided that on the failure, neglect or refusal by the Secretary to circulate the notice of the meeting on the members, the Sarpanch shall cause the notice to be served in any other manner. (iii) In case of absence of any Ward Member, the notice shall be sent to him under certificate of posting. (iv) Accidental failure of service of notice in any member shall not invalidate the proceedings of any meeting.” 8. Bare reading of the above provisions, makes it clear that not only a clear seven days notice is required for the ordinary meeting but there should also be service of such notice on every member. From the submissions made by both the parties, this Court finds, the petitioner has not attended the three consecutive meetings i.e. on 30.11.2013, 16.12.2013, 16.1.2014. Even assuming that under the compelling situation, the petitioner was not in a position to attend the meeting. This Court finds, that since the petitioner himself was the Sarapanch, and it is under his Chair the decision was taken to hold the meeting on 30.11.2013, his absence from the meeting on 30.11.2013 will be treated as deliberate absence. Even assuming that under the compelling situation, the petitioner was not in a position to attend the meeting. This Court finds, that since the petitioner himself was the Sarapanch, and it is under his Chair the decision was taken to hold the meeting on 30.11.2013, his absence from the meeting on 30.11.2013 will be treated as deliberate absence. Now to find out as to if the absence on the other two dates can entail the disqualification of the petitioner to be a Sarapanch following the provisions contained in Subsection 2 of Section 26 of the Act? Looking to the submissions made by the parties regarding the mandatory requirement of service of notice and as this Court finds, there is no dispute that the Naib Sarapanch was conducting the meetings held on 16.12.2013, 16.1.2014 & 16.2.2014 and with the admitted position that the petitioner was not available in the locality on both the dates i.e. on 16.12.2013 & 16.1.2014, the Statute required a clear seven days notice on the petitioner for meeting on both the above dates. This Court neither from the pleading nor from the discussion of the Collector finds, any notice was served on the petitioner for his attending the meeting on 16.12.2013 or 16.1.2014. There is also no denial to this effect by the learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos.2 to 6 or the State counsel. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, there is no compliance of the statutory requirement following the provisions contained in Rule 227 or 228 of the Rule, 1968 and therefore, the impugned order holding the petitioner disqualified from the post of Sarapanch cannot be sustained. 9. This Court finds, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, while interfering in the impugned order, this Court sets aside the order vide Annexure-3 and allows the writ petition. There is no order as to cost.