Udenath Naik vs State Of Odisha & Ors.

V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Ray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3), and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.4 to 14.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Sarpanch of Badatika Gram Panchayat assailing the initiation of a ‘No Confidence motion’ against the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the resolution dated 22.05.2025, which is the basis for initiation of the proceeding, is not in consonance with the provisions contained in 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 :} of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

This Court, by order dated 02.09.2025, while issuing notice, in I.A. No.14474 of 2025 directed, as an interim measure, that the ‘No Confidence motion’ may be put to vote, but the result thereof shall not be published.

The said interim order is still in vogue.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rout, that, on a bare perusal of the proposed resolution, which is in vernacular, it can be seen that the same is not in the nature of a resolution, rather, it conveys a decision which has already been taken. In this context, he relies with vehemence on the submission that the word ‘Siddhanta’, as mentioned in the proposed resolution, connotes a decision already taken and, hence, does not qualify as a proposed resolution. To fortify his submission, he relies upon the definition of ‘Siddhanta’ as given in the “Purna Chandra Bhasakosha”.

To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner in its proper perspective, the definition of ‘Siddhanta’, as stated in “Purna Chandra Bhasakosha”, Vol. VII, is extracted hereunder:

And, in this context, he places relies on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector^{22.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;}, in which the law has been set at rest that, as a precondition for moving a motion of ‘No Confidence’, there must be a resolution and a requisition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rout, that, ex facie, the recitals of the document which is being pressed into service as a resolution, being a decision already taken, disclose a patent infraction of the law laid down by this Court relating to the status of a resolution. Such precondition of a resolution having not been satisfied, the consequential steps for holding the meeting have to be treated as non est in the eye of law and, accordingly, the notice for holding the ‘No Confidence motion’ at Annexure-2 and the ‘No Confidence motion’, which is stated to have been held in the meanwhile, are also liable to be declared null and void.

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Ray, as well as Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the requisitionists, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 14, oppose such submission and submit that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is no longer res integra, in as much as this Court has answered the same in its judgment in the case of Smt. Gunduri Singh v. State of Odisha^{33.(b) the requisititon shall be addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer;}.

The rejoinder has been filed at the behest of the Petitioner.

Mr. Ray, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3, as well as Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the requisitionists, Opposite Party Nos.4 to 14, submits that the ground taken that ‘Siddhanta’ cannot be construed as a proposed resolution is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Gunduri Singh (supra)^{33.Smt. Gunduri Singh v. State of Odisha, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 3705.}.

On a bare perusal of the said judgment, it is seen that the word ‘Siddhanta’ came to be interpreted in the said case and, referring to the judgments which are holding the field, this Court held that the mention of the word ‘Siddhanta’ does not nullify a resolution, construed in the light of the said judgment. Reading the impugned resolution, this Court is of the considered view that the same unambiguously conveys the intention of the requisitionists to initiate the process of ‘No Confidence motion’ against the Petitioner.

Hence, on a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and the law laid down in this regard, as discussed above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

The interim order stands vacated.

The result of ‘No Confidence motion’, which is stated to have been 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. Costs made easy.