Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 682 (ORI)

Truptirani Jena v. State of Odisha

2019-12-24

B.R.SARANGI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Balarampur Grama Panchayat, by way of this writ petition seeks to quash the notice of no confidence motion dated 21.09.2019 in Annexure-2 issued against her by the Sub-Collector, Anandapur in the district of Keonjhar, and further seeks for direction to the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar to consider the application dated 16.08.2019 filed by the petitioner for disqualification of some of the Grama Panchayat Members as per the provisions contained under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 and Rules framed thereunder. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that in the election held in the year 2017 the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Balarampur Grama Panchayat under B.D.O., Ghasipura in the district of Keonjkhar, and has been continuing as such Eleven members of the Balarampur Grama Panchayat, in spite of due notice, remained absent in four consecutive meetings. In regard to the same, the petitioner submitted all the relevant papers to the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar by registered post on 16.08.2019 vide Annexure-1 series for their disqualification from the membership of Balarampur Grama Panchayat. But, the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar did not take any action on the basis of such application, which is pending before him for disposal, as per the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (in short "the Act, 1964"). During pendency of said application before the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar, the Sub-Collector, Anandapur-opposite party no. 3 issued the impugned notice on 21.09.2019 fixing 09.10.2019 at 11 a.m. to convene a special meeting for discussion and voting on no confidence motion against the petitioner at Balarampur Grama Panchayat Office. The said notice was accompanied with a copy of resolution of the special meeting held on 10.09.2019 signed by Naib Sarpanch as President, along with other members. Hence this application. 3. Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. The said notice was accompanied with a copy of resolution of the special meeting held on 10.09.2019 signed by Naib Sarpanch as President, along with other members. Hence this application. 3. Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. S. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when application for disqualification of 11 members of the Balarampur Grama Panchayat was pending for consideration before the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar, the Sub-Collector should not have issued notice of no confidence motion on 21.09.2019 fixing 09.10.2019 at 11 a.m. It is further contended that the copy of the resolution of special meeting, which was enclosed to the notice of no confidence motion, is a created one and cannot be accepted in the eye of law. Though the said resolution reveals that the special meeting was held on 10.09.2019 and its resolution was signed by Ndib Sarpanch as president, but the two officers, namely GPEO I/C and ABDO endorsed on 18.09.2019 that "The above ward members have signed in our presence and the Signature have been tallied with original signature", which creates doubt its authenticity. Therefore, the impugned has not been issued in consonance with the provisions contained under, Section 24 of the Act, 1964. It is further contended that the so called resolution passed on 10.01.2019 is a created one, as it was only signed by the president-cum- Naib Sarpanch without the signature of any other members next below to the same, therefore, any action taken pursuant to impugned notice cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the said resolution dated 10.09.2019 was apparently created under political pressure and with ill will against the petitioner, who was opposing the local MLA Consequentially, the impugned notice under Annexure-2 cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Muktamanjari Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2010 (II) OLR 473 . 4. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate emphatically submitted that on the basis of communication dated 16.08.2019 vide Annexure-1 series steps have been taken by the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar-opposite party no. 2, who instructed the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar Sadar, vide letter dated 30.09.2019, to enquire into the matter regarding disqualification of ward members of Balarampur Grama Panchayat and submit a detailed enquiry report before the Collector. 2, who instructed the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar Sadar, vide letter dated 30.09.2019, to enquire into the matter regarding disqualification of ward members of Balarampur Grama Panchayat and submit a detailed enquiry report before the Collector. It is further contended that upon receipt of resolution of special meeting held on 10.09.2019 from the Naib Sarpanch, the Sub-Collector, Anandapur sent a letter on 13.09.2019 to the B.D.O., Ghasipura to examine the authenticity of signatures of the Ward Members and submit a certificate to that effect. The B.D.O., Ghasipura, after due verification, submitted the report on 18.09.2019 along with certificate of authentication. Consequentially, as required under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 1964, notice dated 21.09.2019 was issued for convening a special meeting to be held on 09.10.2019 and, as such, denied the allegation of creation of the resolution dated 10.09.2019 and contended that notice of no confidence motion dated 21.09.2019 has been issued in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Act, 1964, which does not require any interference of this Court at this stage. 5. Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 contended that as per Section 122 of the Act, 1964 the Executive Officer of the Grama Panchayat shall maintain the records of the proceedings of the meetings of the Grama Panchayat and shall remain in custody of all the records and document of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, he is in custody of all the records of the Grama Panchayat except resolution book. On several occasions, he requested the petitioner and her husband-Sri Akhil Charan Jena to hand over the resolution book, but the same was not handed over. As such, the petitioner always comes to the Grama Panchayat Office being accompanied by her husband and the proceeding of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat is being recorded by the husband of the petitioner and this fact was brought to the notice of the Block Development Officer. On 30.05.2019, the panchayat meeting was fixed and on that date the petitioner was absent but her husband, who usually attend the meeting along with her, was present. The elected Ward Members insisted that the Sarpanch should remain present. The husband of the petitioner took the resolution book and left the place of meeting. On 30.05.2019, the panchayat meeting was fixed and on that date the petitioner was absent but her husband, who usually attend the meeting along with her, was present. The elected Ward Members insisted that the Sarpanch should remain present. The husband of the petitioner took the resolution book and left the place of meeting. Therefore, on the instructions of the elected members and Naib Sarpanch, the Executive Officer opened another resolution book and the same was duly countersigned by the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar. Several resolutions were passed by the Grama Panchayat on 30.05.2019, 24.07.2019 and 15.08.2019 and the same were recorded by the Executive Officer and no resolutions of the Grama Panchayat were passed on 30.06.2019, 20.07.2019, 30.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 as per the panchayat resolution book, thereby, question of disqualification of members, as alleged by the petitioner, does not arise It is further contended that the resolution submitted by the Naib Sarpanch and all the Ward Members dated 10.09.2019 to the Sub-Collector was verified in the office of the Grama Panchayat by the Grama Panchayat Officer (GPO) in-charge and ABDO of Ghasipura Block. All the members, who had signed the resolution dated 10.09.2019, once again put their signatures in the said resolution for compare and it was found by the Sub-Collector that the signatures were genuine and, thereafter, the notice dated 21.09.2019 was issued by the Sub-Collector to conduct no confidence motion against the petitioner. Accordingly, no confidence motion was held on 09.10.2019, but due to the interim order passed by this Court the result of no confidence motion could not be published and the same has been kept in a sealed cover. 6. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel has filed an application, on behalf of elected Ward Members, seeking for intervention in the matter and to be impleaded as opposite parties with the permission to file counter affidavit and participate in the hearing. Though such intervention petition has not been allowed, Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the interveners has been given opportunity to address the Court. He argued with vehemence indicating that suppressing the material facts before this Court, the petitioner has approached by filing the present writ petition, which cannot sustain in the eye of law. Due to gross illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner, no confidence motion was initiated against her by all the Ward Members including the Naib Sarpanch. He argued with vehemence indicating that suppressing the material facts before this Court, the petitioner has approached by filing the present writ petition, which cannot sustain in the eye of law. Due to gross illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner, no confidence motion was initiated against her by all the Ward Members including the Naib Sarpanch. He adopted the Counter affidavits filed by State opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and also opposite party no. 5-the Executive Officer and contended that the petitioner has misled the Court by giving a distorted fact. 7. This Court heard Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. S. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties; Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5; and Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for intervener petitioners, and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. Election to the office of the Sarpanch of Balarampur Grama Panchayat was held in the year 2017, in which the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner alleging disqualification of 11 members of Balarampur Grama Panchayat, approached the Collector opposite party no. 2 by filing Annexure-1 on 16.08.2019. Consequentially, the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar instructed the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar Sadar vide letter dated 30.09.2019 to enquire into the matter and submit report. 9. As per the Section 122 of the Act, 1964, the Executive Officer of the Grama Panchayat shall have to maintain the records of the proceedings of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat and all other records and documents of the Grama Panchayat. The provisions contained under Section 122 of the Act read as follows: "122. Executive Officer of Grama Sasan. -(1) There shall bean Executive Officer, for every Grama Sasan who shall,- (a) maintain the records of the proceedings of the-meetings of Grama Panchayats; (b) remain in custody of all such records and documents, cash and valuable securities belonging to or vested in or under the direction, management or control of the Grama Sasari as may be prescribed; and (c) exercise such other powers, discharge such other duties and perform such other functions as may be prescribed. (2) The VLWs. and VAWs. (2) The VLWs. and VAWs. working, in a district shall, for the purposes of Sub-section (1), act as Executive Officers within the local area of such Grama or Gramas as may respectively be assigned to them by the Collector. Explanation - For the purpose of Sub-section (2),- (a) "VLWs." shall mean the Village Level Workers appointed by the Collector for implementing different developmental schemes relating to different levels of Panchayats in the State, and (b) "VLWs." shall mean the Village Agriculture Workers appointed for extension of agricultural activities in the State. (3) Subject to the general superintendence and overall control of the Grama Panchayat, the Executive Officer shall function under the control and supervision of the Director, Collector and the District Panchayat Officer. In view of the aforesaid provisions, since power has been vested with the Executive Officer, he should be in possession/custody of all the records of Grama Panchayat. In the instant case, the opposite party no. 5, being the Executive Officer, is in possession/custody of all the records except Grama Panchayat resolution book. The Executive Officer requested the petitioner and her husband to handover the resolution book to him, as he is the custodian of the records, so that he can maintain the proceedings of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat, but the petitioner did not hand over the same. As such, the petitioner comes to Grama Panchayat Office being accompanied with her husband and proceeding of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat was being recorded by her husband and this fact was brought to the notice of the BDO. Since the husband of the petitioner came with resolution book on the date of panchayat meeting and took away the same after the meeting was over, the Executive Officer could not keep the resolution book. On 30.05.2019, to which the Panchayat meeting was fixed, the petitioner was absent and on that date her husband, who usually attend the panchayat meeting along with her, was present. When elected Ward Members insisted that Sarpanch must remain present, the husband of the petitioner took away the resolution book and left the place of meeting. On 30.05.2019, to which the Panchayat meeting was fixed, the petitioner was absent and on that date her husband, who usually attend the panchayat meeting along with her, was present. When elected Ward Members insisted that Sarpanch must remain present, the husband of the petitioner took away the resolution book and left the place of meeting. As per the direction of all the elected Ward Members and Naib Sarpanch, the Executive Officer, opened another resolution book and the same was duly countersigned by the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar Several resolutions were passed by the Gram Panchayat on 30.05.2019, 24.07.2019 and 15.08.2019 and the same were recorded by the Executive Officer in the said Panchayat resolution book. As such, no resolution of the Grama Panchayat was passed on 30.06.2019, 20.07.2019, 30.07.2019 and 03.08.2019, as per the Panchayat resolution book. Therefore, question of disqualification of its members, having not attended four consecutive meetings, does not arise. As per the order of the Collector, Keonjhar dated 30.09.2019, the Sub-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Keonjhar on 22.10.2019 inspected the resolution book of the Grama Panchayat, which was opened on 30.05.2019, and found that there were no resolution passed on 30.06.2019, 20.07.2019, 30.07.2019 and 03.08.2019, as has been alleged by the petitioner. The resolution dated 10.09.2019 submitted by the Naib Sarpanch and all the Ward Members to the Sub-Collector, was verified in the office of the Gram Panchayat by the Gram Panchayat Officer (GPO) in-charge and ABDO of Ghasipura Block. All the members, who signed the resolution dated 10.09.2019 again put their signatures in the said resolution for comparing and it was found by the Sub-Collector that the signatures are genuine. Thereafter, notice dated 21.09.2019 was issued by the Sub-Collector to conduct no confidence motion against the petitioner in Annexure-2 and such notice was issued in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Act, 1964. 10. For the sake of convenience, Section 24 of the Act, 1962 is extracted below: 24. Thereafter, notice dated 21.09.2019 was issued by the Sub-Collector to conduct no confidence motion against the petitioner in Annexure-2 and such notice was issued in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Act, 1964. 10. For the sake of convenience, Section 24 of the Act, 1962 is extracted below: 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 certificated 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. [(3) When a meeting has been held in pursuance of Sub-section (2) for recording want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, no fresh requisition for a meeting shall be maintainable- (a) in cases failing under Clauses (i) and (j) of the said sub-section or where the resolution is defeated after being considered at the meeting so held, before the expiry of-one year from the date of such meeting, or (b) where the notification calling for general election to the Grama Panchayat has already been published under or in pursuance of Section 12. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (3) no requisition under Sub-section (2) shall be maintainable in the case of a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, before the expiry of [two years] from the date on which such Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch enters office; [Provided that all requisitions received under Sub-section (2) prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 1993, in which no meeting for recording want of confidence has been held by the said date, shall stand abated.] Explanation -The expression "total membership of the Grama Panchayat" shall refer to the total number of members specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 10 together with the number of members, if any, actually holding office at the relevant date in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of the said section. As per the above provisions, the special meeting for no confidence notion under sub-section (1) has to be convened by the Sub-Collector in accordance with sub-clause (a) of Section 24(2) only on receipt of 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. On perusal of no confidence motion notice dated 29.09.2019, whereby the date for holding special meeting has been fixed to 09.10.2019, is accompanied by the requisition and resolution of the Grama Panchayat dated 10.09.2019, which is in due compliance of the provisions contained under Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Act, 1964. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Muktamanjari Sahoo (supra), where this Court has allowed the writ petition for non-compliance of Section 24(2) of the Act, is of no help. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Muktamanjari Sahoo (supra), where this Court has allowed the writ petition for non-compliance of Section 24(2) of the Act, is of no help. Therefore, notice for convening the special meeting under Section 24(1) of the Act, 1964, having been issued by the Sub-Collector in compliance of Section 24(2), the same is just, valid and " does call for any interference. 11. The sole contention reiterated before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is, what has been pleaded under subclause (a) of para-6 of the writ application, which reads as follows: 6. That the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Keonjhar has not taken any action on the basis said application dt. 16.08.2019 vide Annexure-1 Series which is pending before the Collector "District Magistrate, Keonjhar for disposal as per Odisdha Grama Panchayat Act and rules after hearing the parties, So the Hon'ble Court should direct the Op No. 2 Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Keonjhar to decide the application for disqualification of Balarampur Grama Panchayat members who have not attended four consecutive meetings by fixing time for disposal of application dt. 16.08.2019. a. That while the matter of disqualification of Balarampur GP members are pending before the Op No. 2 the Collector and District Magistrate, Keonjhar for decision, the Sub Collector Anandpur the Op No. 3 issued and notice dt. 21.09.2019 on 21.09.2019 fixing dt. 09.10.2019 at 11 A.M. for no confidence motion at Balarampur Grama Panchayat Office for discussion and voting. The said notice is accompany with a copy of special meeting dt. 10.09.2019 signed by Nayab Sarpanch as President and in the back side signed by two officers IIC, GP and ABDO on 18.09.2019 and endorsed that" the above Ward members have signed in our presence and the signatures have been tallied with original signature". The said special meeting dt. 10.09.2019 is created one and cannot be accepted in eye of law which is enclosed to the notice dt. 21.09.2019 by the Sub Collector Anandpur Op No. 3. The said notice dt. 21.09.2019 accompanied with resolution dt. 10.09.2019 is illegal arbitrary and outcome of malafide intention and on the political pressure of the local MLA." In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3, in reply to such paragraph 6(a), it has been specifically stated as follows: "6. The said notice dt. 21.09.2019 accompanied with resolution dt. 10.09.2019 is illegal arbitrary and outcome of malafide intention and on the political pressure of the local MLA." In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3, in reply to such paragraph 6(a), it has been specifically stated as follows: "6. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraphs 6(a) & 8 of the Writ Application, it is humbly submitted that the allegations of the Petitioner are not correct and are hereby denied. It is humbly submitted that upon receiving the copy of resolution of the special meeting Dtd. 10.09.2019 from Achyutanancia Behera, Naib-Sarpanch and 20 other members of the Balarampur Gram Panchayat, the present deponent (O.P. No. 3) had sent the same to the Block Development Officer, Ghasipura vide letter No. 4879/GP./dtd. 13.09.2019 for verification of signatures of the members. The Block Development Officer, Ghasipura has returned the same after due verification of the signatures of the members alongwith certificate of authentication vide letter No. 2076/G.P./2019 dtd. 18.09.2019. As laid down U/S 24 of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, Notice dtd. 21.09.2019 was issued for convening the special meeting on 09.10.2019. It is not the fact that resolution of dtd. 10.09.2019 is a created one, as t is certified by the BDO, Ghasipura regarding authentication of the signatures of the members. It is submitted that the act of O.P. No. 3 is well within framework of law, not an arbitrary one. Hence the submission of the Petitioner having no merit and is hereby denied." The above mentioned specific pleading made by opposite parties, in reply to pargraph-6 of the writ petition, in paragbraph-6 of the counter affidavit, having not been denied by filing rejoinder affidavit, is treated to be admitted, by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned notice dated 21.09.2019 in Annexure-2, having been issued in consonance with the provisions contained-under Section 24 of the Act, 1964, is not required to be interfered with, reason being, the resolution dated 10.09.2019 has been signed by 21 Ward Members of Balarampur Grama Panchayat, which was chaired by Naib Sarpanch, and both the requisition as well as the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat for issuance of no confidence motion, pursuant to which notice dated 21.09.2019 was issued, is in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Act, 1964. 12. 12. It is further contended that the resolution dated 10.09.2019 signed by Naib Sarpanch as president and in its back side signed by two officers, namely, I/C GPO and ABDO on 18.09.2019 with an endorsement that "the above Ward Members have signed in our presence and the signatures have been tallied with original signatures", that itself is a misleading and distorted fact placed before this Court. On close consideration of such document, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-2, this Court finds that such endorsement has been given by "IIC, G.P.O. and ABDO" on 18.09.2019. It is next to impossible to imagine that in such a matter any IIC would give an endorsement to that effect, thereby, this amounts to misleading the court, It has been specifically pleaded in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 5 to the following effect: "6. ................It is Pertinent to mention here that the resolution submitted the Naib Sarpanch and all the wards members dated 10.09.2019 to the Sub-Collector was verified in the office of the Gram Panchayat by the Gram Panchayat Officer (GPO) in-charge, and A.B.D.O. of Ghasipura Block. All the Members who signed the resolution dated 10.09.2019 again put their signature in the said resolution for compare and it is found by the Sub-Collector that the signature are genuine and thereafter the notice dated 21.09.2019 issued by the Sub-Collector to conduct the no confidence motion against the Sarpanch (writ petitioner.)............" This has also not been controverted by the petitioner in any manner. 13. As regards expressing distorted facts before the Court and not approaching with clean hands, in R. v. Kensington, Income Tax Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 at page 506, it has been held as follows: "The prerogative writ is not a matter of course; the applicant must come in the manner prescribed and must be perfectly frank and open with the Court." 14. In State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 , the apex Court refused to grant relief on the ground that the applicant has misled the Court. 15. In Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar AIR 1994 SC 579 , the apex Court held that a writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. 16. 15. In Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar AIR 1994 SC 579 , the apex Court held that a writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. 16. Taking into consideration the above-judgments, this Court, in Netrananda Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2018 (II) OLR 436 , came to a conclusion in paragraph-26 of the said judgment and held as under:- "............For suppression of facts and having not approached this Court with a clean hand, the encroacher is not entitled to get any 'relief, particularly when the valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner is being jeopardized for last 43 years for no fault of him, on which this Court takes a serious view........." This fact has also been considered in Swapna Pradhan v. State of Orissa, (W.P.(C) No. 20855 of 2017 : 2020 (I) OLR 93 disposed of on 03.12.2019). 17. Therefore, by applying the above ratio to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that by giving distorted facts the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and, as such, she has not come to this Court with clean hands. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief. 18. This Court passed an interim order on 01.10.2019 in I.A No. 13799 of 2019 to the following effect: "As an interim measure, it is directed that no confidence motion may take place but there shall be no final outcome involving" no confidence till next date." No confidence motion was held on 09.10.2019, but the ballot box has been kept in sealed cover, as has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 5. In view of such position, the interim order dated 01.10.2019 stands vacated and the opposite parties are directed to open the sealed cover of the ballot box, in which vote for no confidence motion has been kept, within a period of seven days and result thereof shall be declared. 19. In the result therefore, scrutinizing the matter both factually and legally, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.