Smt. Mayabati Munda vs State Of Odisha & Ors.

V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3), and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.4 to 13.

The writ petition has been filed at the behest of the Sarpanch of Kharsanmal Gram Panchayat, assailing the notice at Annexure-1 dated 12.01.2026 for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against her in terms of Section 24^{11.24. 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 requisititon 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. (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 falling 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.} of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. On the strength of the requisition as well as the resolution moved by the Naib Sarpanch along with ten other Ward Members.

The essence of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there has been patent violation of the procedure laid down in passing the resolution dated 17.12.2025 as well as the requisition dated 05.01.2026 at Annexures-2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, it is stated that the consequential steps taken for convening the meeting for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’ are non est in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.

It is apt to note here that, taking into account the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, by order dated 02.02.2026, while issuing notice in I.A. No.1987 of 2026, this Court, by order of the even date, directed that the meeting for considering the motion of ‘No Confidence’ against the Sarpanch of Kharsanmal Gram Panchayat may take place, but the result thereof shall not be published without the leave of this Court.

The interim order is still in vogue.

During the pendency of the matter before this Court, the Naib Sarpanch and other Ward Members, at whose instance the motion for ‘No Confidence’ was initiated, sought to intervene and, by order dated 10.03.2026 in I.A. No.4608 of 2026, their intervention was allowed and impleaded as Opposite Party Nos.4 to 13.

In opposing the prayer of the Petitioner regarding the alleged infraction of the procedure leading to the convening of the meeting for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’, counter affidavits have been filed by the State–Opposite Party No.3 as well as the Naib Sarpanch and Ward Members, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 13.

Learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Ray, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the State, submits that there is no infraction of Section 24¹ of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 in passing the resolution and the requisition.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner harped on the alleged discrepancy in the dates of passing the resolution and signature of the Naib Sarpanch. It was submitted that since a resolution is purported to have been passed on 17.12.2025 and has been signed on 05.01.2026, the very genuineness of the resolution is under cloud and basing upon such resolution a Sarpanch, who is elected on the basis of popular mandate ought not to be unseated.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that to allay any apprehension in this regard and to ensure transparency in the procedure adopted, by order dated 05.01.2026, the BDO was directed to verify the signatures of the requisitionists of the ‘No Confidence Motion’. The same is on record at Annexure-A/3 and, pursuant to the same, after verification of the resolution and requisition, a report was submitted by the BDO regarding the genuineness of the signatures.

The extract of the report submitted by the BDO is quoted hereunder for convenience of reference:

In the counter affidavit filed at the behest of the requisitionists, the stand of the Petitioner that the resolution dated 17.12.2025, having been signed by the Naib Sarpanch on 05.01.2026, cannot be said to be a resolution in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24¹ of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, has been answered.

Paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed at their behest, which is germane for adjudication, is quoted hereunder for convenience of reference;

8-A. Paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the State germane for just adjudication is quoted hereunder;

8-B. It is apt to note that no reply has been submitted by the Petitioner qua the stand of the State as well as the requisitionists noted in the preceding paragraphs.

So far as the modality of seeking a ‘No Confidence Motion’ is concerned, the same is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal^{22.Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4218.}.

Considering the rival stands on the said count, more particularly as stated in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as that of the requisitionists in paragraph-8 quoted hereinabove, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nabanita Kapat Patra (supra)², this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is any infirmity in the convening of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

The interim order stands vacated.

The result of ‘No Confidence motion’, if so held, may be declared and steps consequential thereto be taken in accordance with the provisions in this regard in terms of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.