Page 1 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India.

------------------

Smt. Gunduri Singh …. Petitioner

-versus-

1. State of Odisha,

represented through the

Principal Secretary to

Government,

Panchayatiraj & Drinking

Water Department,

Odisha Secretariat,

Sachivalaya Marg, BBSR,

Khurdha

2. Collector, Mayurbhanj

3. Sub- Collector & SDM,

Kaptipada, Udala,

Mayurbhanj

4. Block Development

Officer, Udala,

Mayurbhanj

5. District Panchayat Officer,

Mayurbhanj

…. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate

Mr. S. Rath, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

Mr. M.K. Pati, Adv. (Intervenors)

CORAM:

JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Page 2 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 14.05.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.05.2026

V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel

for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State

and learned counsel for the Intervenors.

1. The Petitioner, Naib-Sarpanch holding the

office of Sarpanch of Nuagaon Gram Panchayat in

the district of Mayurbhanj, has assailed the notice

No. 4711 dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure-1) for

convening the meeting of ‘No Confidence Motion’

against Smt. Gunduri Sing, the Naib-Sarpanch of

Nuagaon GP, scheduled to be held on

10.11.2025.

2. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2025,

while issuing notice in the writ petition, in I.A.

No. 19549 of 2025, directed that “the motion to

be held on the date fixed but the result of the

same shall not be published till the next date of

hearing.”

The said interim order is still in vogue.

3. It is apt to note that this Court took note of

the submission of the learned Senior Counsel in

Paragraph-3 of the order dated 06.11.2025 while

issuing notice.

Paragraphs-3 and 4 of the said order is

extracted hereunder;

Page 3 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

“3. The submission of Mr. Rath,

learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the petitioner is that the notice in

question has not been received by the

petitioner along with the proposed

resolution and requisition, hence, the

action under Section 24 of the Odisha

Grama Panchayats Act is vitiated.

4. In view of the above plea, Mr.

Swain, learned AGA for the State is

requested to receive notice for the

opposite parties and to take instructions

and reply on the next date for final

orders. An extra copy of the writ petition

with annexures is directed to be served

on the State in course of the day.”

4. The relevant recitals in the writ petition, to

fortify such submission of the learned Senior

Counsel, as stated in paragraphs-2(a) and (b) as

well as paragraphs-9 to 12, are extracted

hereunder along with the prayer:

“2. That the main grounds of challenge in

this Writ Petition are;

(a) The mandatory requirement of law as

contained in the Gram Panchayat Act

regarding furnishing of a requisition since

is not complied with, the notice issued

under Annexure-1 is contrary to law and is

liable to be quashed.

(b) The impugned notice under Annexure-

1 did not accompany a copy of requisition

and proposed resolution as required under

Page 4 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

Section-24(2)(c) of Orissa Gram

Panchayat Act. Hence, the entire

proceeding is without jurisdiction and is

liable to be quashed.

xxx xxx xxx

9. That the Sub-Collector & SDM has

issued notice dated 23.10.2025 without

accompanying any requisition and

proposed resolution. The petitioner has

not been served with copy of the notice

accompanying requisition and proposed

resolution.

10. That the mandatory provision of law as

stipulated under Section-24(2)(c), the

Notice issued by Sub-Collector must

accompany requisition and proposed

resolution to be passed.

11. That although the notice states that

the copy of requisition and resolution

attached thereto but as a matter of fact no

such requisition and resolution is received

by the petitioner along with the notice.

This fact is mentioned by the petitioner

when the notice was sought to be served

by the PEO.

12. That the mandates of law as required

are service of copy of proposed resolution,

which is to be moved in the meeting

against the naib-sarpanch. Since no

proposed resolution and requisition has

been served along with notice, there is a

clear infraction and departure of law as

provided under section 24 of Gram

Panchayat Act. Moreover such non service

Page 5 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

has seriously prejudiced the petitioner.

The Petitioner does not know what is to be

moved and replied by the petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx

“Prayer

The petitioner therefore, prays that

your Lordships would be graciously

pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for

the records and after hearing the parties

allow the same, issue writ/writs in the

nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any

other further writ/direction, quashing the

proceedings of "No Confidence Motion"

against the petitioner by the Sub Collector

& SDM, Kaptipada, Udala under Annexure-

1.

And for this act of kindness, the

petitioners shall as in duty bound ever

pray.

xxx xxx xxx”

5. In response to the notice, counter affidavit

was filed by State-Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 and

nine (9) Ward Members, who are the

requisitionists, filed I.A. No. 21906 of 2025 for

intervention.

Though the intervention has not been

allowed, with the consent of the parties, the

learned counsel for the interveners, Mr. Pati, was

also allowed to put forth his stand. It may not be

out of place to state here that the interventionist

Page 6 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

echoed the stand of the State-Opposite Parties

seeking dismissal of the writ petition.

6. To fortify their submission, learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the

judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the

case of Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector,

Kandhamal

1

, as well as in the cases of

Prahallad Dalei vs. State of Odisha

2

and

Damayanti Hansda v. State of Odisha

3

and

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita

v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others

4

.

7. Mr. Ray, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the State relies on the judgments of

this Court in the cases of Prahallad Dalei vs.

State of Odisha

2

, Sulochana Sethy v. The

Collector, Puri and others

5

and Jagyesni

Oram v. State of Odisha and others

6

.

8. It is apt to note that the order passed by

the learned single judge in Jagyanseni Oram

(supra)

6

is stated to be subject matter of

challenge in W.A. No.652 of 2025.

9. In response to the recitals in the writ

petition, the State filed counter as noted and the

1

Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4218

2

Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 395

3

Damayanti Hansda v. State of Odisha, 2020 (III) ILR-CUT-126

4

Kavita v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (10) SCC 569

5

Sulochana Sethy v. Collector, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2523: AIR

2022 Ori 89

6

Jagyanseni Oram v. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.1312

of 2025 (disposed of on 28.02.2025)

Page 7 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

stand taken by the Petitioner in paragraphs-2(a)

and (b) regarding non-receipt of requisition as

stated in para-2(a) of the writ petition and copy

of requisition and proposed resolution not being

part of Annexure-1 notice in para-2(b) of the writ

petition have been denied in para-7 of the

counter affidavit, so also, the averments in paras-

9 to 12 have been controverted in para-8 of the

counter affidavit.

9-A. Paragraphs-6 to 8 of the counter affidavit

are extracted hereunder for convenience of

reference;

“6. That the averments made in Para- 1

of the writ petition are not correct and

hereby denied. It is humbly submitted

that on 10.09.2025, Nine (9) numbers of

Ward Members out of Eleven (11)

numbers of Ward Members of Nuagaon

Gram Panchayat under Udala Block have

submitted the petition along with

requisition/resolution copy of the

Resolution dtd.08.09.2025 against the

Naib-Sarapanch with various allegations

to the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada which was

duly signed by the Ward Members of

Nuagaon Gram Panchayat for "No

Confidence Motion" against the concerned

Naib-Sarapanch Smt.Gundudri Singh.

After receiving the said Requisition

and Resolution, the Sub-Collector,

Kaptipada, Udala issued a letter dtd.

Page 8 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

08.10.2025 to the Block Development

Officer, Udala and all the requisitionists to

remain present in his office on 17.10.2025

for verification of the signature of the

requisitionists. In the said letter dtd.

08.10.2025 request was also made for

presence of Panchayat Executive Officer,

Nuagaon Gram Panchayat and Gram

Panchayat Development Officer, Udala

Block. The said letter was communicated

to all the Ward Members (requisitionists)

and they have also acknowledged the

receipt of the same, giving a receipt for

the purpose. Thereafter, the signature of

Ward Members was verified by the Sub-

Collector, Kaptipada and found to be

genuine.

Copies of the Resolution dtd.

08.09.2025, Requisition dtd. 10.09.2025

and Letter dtd. 08.10.2025 issued by the

Sub-Collector, Kaptipada are annexed

herewith as Annexures-A/4, B/4 and C/4

respectively.

7. That the averments made in Para-

2(a) & 2(b) of the writ petition are not

correct and hereby denied. It is humbly

submitted that the Notice dated

23.10.2025 (Annexure-1) along with

Resolution dtd. 08.09.2025 and

Requisition dtd. 10.09.2025 was issued by

the Sub-Collector & SDM, Kaptipada,

Udala to all the Ward Members including

Naib-Sarapanch for holding of a "No

Confidence Motion" on 10.11.2025 at 11

AM at Nuagaon Gram Panchayat Office as

Page 9 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

per Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Gram

Panchayat Act, 1964 against Smt. Gunduri

Singh, the Naib Sarapnach. The said

notice was served on the Ward Members

and Naib Sarapanch by the Panchayat

Executive Officer, Nuagaon Gram

Panchayat. After serving notice, the

Panchayat Executive Officer has obtained

the signature of Naib-Sarapanach and 10

other Ward Members acknowledging

receipt of notice by them along with the

copy of proposed Resolution and the

Requisition.

Copy of the Notice No. 4711

dtd.23.10.2025 and the Receipt showing

service of proposed Requisition and

Resolution are annexed herewith as

Annexure-D/4 & E/4 respectively.

8. That the averments made in paras-3

to 13 of the writ petition are not correct

and hereby denied. It is humbly submitted

that the Notice dtd.23.10.2025 has been

issued to the Naib Sarapanch and other

Ward Members along with copy of the

resolution and requisition and the same

has been received by all of them and for

that purpose receipt has also been

obtained by the Panchayat Executive

Officer, Nuagaon Gram panchayat.

Therefore, the allegation made by the

petitioner is absolutely false and baseless.

The rest of the averments made by the

petitioner are mere facts which are not

necessary to reply to decide the real

dispute involved in the present case.”

Page 10 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

10. It would be apposite to state here that

no rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner.

11. On a bare perusal of the uncontroverted

assertion in the said paragraphs, it is seen that

the primary ground of challenge as stated in the

writ petition, and which was succinctly quoted by

this Court while issuing notice, is negated by the

averments in the counter, which, at the cost of

repetition, have gone unchallenged.

12. On a bare perusal of Annexure-E/4, which

is in terms of the impugned Notice at Annexure-1

bearing No. 4711 dated 23.10.2025, it is seen

that the same has been received by the Petitioner

along with the requisition and resolution.

For convenience of reference, the said

Annexure is extracted hereunder;

13. Referring to the recitals of the counter

affidavit, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ray,

AGA, submits that the sole ground of challenge in

the writ petition, being not sustainable, in view of

Page 11 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

the uncontroverted documents on record, the writ

petition is liable to be rejected on the said score

alone.

14. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner, however, urged that there is no

embargo for this Court to consider as to whether

the resolution satisfies the test of “resolution

proposed and proposed resolution” in section

24(2)(a) and (c)

7

the Orissa Grama Panchayats

7

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 th e

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-Divisio nal

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.

Page 12 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

Act, 1964 in the light of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Damayanti Hansda

(supra)

3

.

15. This Court finds force in such submission,

since the ground that the resolution does not

conform to the stipulations as in Section 24(2)(a)

and (c)

7

of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act,

1964, being a matter of interpretation, can be

(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 b y the

majority as specified in Sub-Section (1) the Presiding Officer shall

immediately for ward the same in original along with the record of

the proceedings to the Collector who shall forthwith publish t he

resolution in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (1); and

(k) where any Gazetted Officer presides at the meeting the shal l,

without prejudice to he 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 prejuldice to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) n o

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.

Page 13 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

decided even without any recital foundation in the

said regard in the writ petition.

To appreciate the lis, relevant extract of

Section 24

7

of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act,

1964 dealing with Vote of no confidence against

Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch is culled out

hereunder;

“24. Vote of no confidence against

Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch- (1) xxx

xxx

(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) xxx xxx xxx

(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;

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasized)

Page 14 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

16. The submission of learned Senior Counsel

Mr. Rath is that the absence of the word

“proposed” in the notice at Annexure-1 renders it

otiose and consequently, the entire process of

convening the meeting to consider the “No

Confidence Motion” against the Petitioner is non

est in law.

However, this contention cannot be

countenanced in view of the resolution at

Annexure-A/4 and the requisition at Annexure-

B/4 (annexed to the counter of Opposite Party

Nos. 2 to 5) and, constraining the same in the

light of Section 24(2)(c)

7

of the Orissa Grama

Panchayats Act, 1964, on the touchstone of the

Full Bench judgment in Nabanita Kapat Patra

v. Collector, Kandhamal

1

, also in view of the

time tested principle of “substance over form.”

17. The next issue which arises for

consideration is as to whether the resolution at

Annexure-A/4 conforms to the test of “resolution

proposed” and “proposed resolution” in Section

24(2)(a) and (c)

7

of the Orissa Grama Panchayats

Act, 1964 respectively.

18. To buttress his submission that the

resolution is not the “proposed” resolution but

in fact is a communication of a decision already

taken, thereby prejudging the issue, and such

Page 15 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

approach being not envisaged under Section

24(2)(c)

7

of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act,

1964, the learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner relies heavily on the judgment of this

Court in the case of Damayanti Hansda

(supra)

3

.

18-A. It is submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel, Mr. Rath that the learned Single Judge

in the case of Damayanti Hansda (supra)

3

,

by judgment dated 06.05.2020, referred to

Odia Language Lexicon “Purna Chandra

Bhasakosha” compiled by the doyen of Odia

literature, Late Shri Gopal Chandra Praharaj.

And, on a prespicuous analysis of the notice

assailed therein, which was in vernacular

(Odia), came to the finding that the Annexure-1

therein is not in terms of Section 24(2)(c)

7

of

the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.

For better appreciation, the notice in the

case of Damayanti Hansda (supra)

3

is

extracted hereunder;

Page 16 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

19. In the case at hand the notice in question is

not in vernacular. And, so far as purport of a

resolution is concerned, the same has been set

at rest by the judgment of this Court in the case

of Prahallad Dalei (supra)

2

as well as

judgment dated 13.05.2026 delivered by this

Bench in the case of Minatirani Madhei v.

State of Odisha

8

in W.P.(C) No.34984 of 2025.

The decision in the case of Prahallad Dalei

(supra)

2

still holds the field and has been relied

8

Minatirani Madhei v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 34984 of 2025,

13.05.2026

Page 17 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

upon by this Court as noted in the case of

Minatirani Madhei (supra)

8

.

20. The resolution, which is stated to be not in

consonance with the provisions of “resolution

proposed” and “proposed resolution” in the case

at hand has been annexed as Annexure-A/4 by

the State Opposite Parties and the same is

extracted hereunder;

Page 18 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

21. On a bare reading of the same, it can be

seen that it unequivocally conveys the intention

of the 9 (nine) requisitionists to initiate the

process of seeking a vote of ‘No Confidence

Motion’ against the Petitioner, Naib-Sarpanch.

The last paragraph of the aforesaid

resolution, in the considered view of this Court,

conveys the collective wisdom of the

requisitionists to move a ‘No Confidence Motion’,

Page 19 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

and the tenor of language, in effect, conforms to

the requirement as envisaged under 24(2)(a)

7

as

well as 24(2)(c)

7

the Orissa Grama Panchayats

Act, 1964, considered on the touchstone of the

latest judgment of this Court in Minatirani

Madhei (supra)

8

.

22. It is further apposite to note that the

decision in Prahallad Dalei (supra)

2

was also

approved in the case of Sebati Pujari v. State

of Odisha and others

9

.

The decision in Sebati Pujari (supra)

9

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court

affirming Prahallad Dalei (supra)

2

have not

been referred to in the judgment of this Court in

the case of Damayanti Hansda (supra)

3

.

22-A. The contention to nullify the resolution

which is in the considered view of this Court

conforms to the statutory requirement of Section

24(2)(a) and (c)

7

of the Orissa Grama Panchayats

Act, 1964 relying on the word ‘Sidhant’

(vernacular) as appearing in the said resolution

bereft of its context, on the strength of the

judgment of this Court in the case of Damayanti

Hansda (supra)

3

does not stand to reason and

as such untenable.

9

Sebati Pujari v. State of Odisha, AIR 2017 Ori 1

Page 20 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

22-B. This Court will not lengthen the

shadow of this judgment by restating the obvious

by referring to precedents that each case is born

out of its pec uliar facts. Therefore, the

submission of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.

Rath, to the contrary, placing reliance on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Damayanti

Hansda (supra)

3

, is to be shunned.

22-C. It is apt to note, at the cost of

repetition, that the judgments which were holding

the field in the cases of Prahallad Dalei

(supra)

2

as well as Sebati Pujari (supra)

9

having a direct bearing on the point at issue were

not brought to the notice of the learned Single

Judge while deciding Damayanti Hansda

(supra)

3

. In the light of the ratio in the cases of

Prahallad Dalei (supra)

2

and Sebati Pujari

(supra)

9

the inescapable conclusion is that the

said judgment [Damayanti Hansda (supra)

3

]

having laid down no ratio, cannot be regarded as

a precedent.

Even otherwise the same has no

application to the facts of the present case.

23. In view of the perspicuous analysis as

above, in the light of the judgments of this Court

referred to hereinabove, the writ petition, being

devoid of merit is dismissed.

Page 21 of 21

W.P.(C). No.31157 of 2025

Interim order dated 06.11.2025 stands

vacated.

24. The result of ‘No Confidence Motion’ kept in

sealed cover be declared forthwith and action in

accordance with law be taken pursuant to such

resolution.

25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of. Cost made easy.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 20

th

May, 2026/ Santoshi