Sri. Debaraj Mallika vs Collector, Puri and Others

P.K. Mohanti, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the Resolution passed by the Karabara Grama Panchayat (vide Annexure-2) recording want of confidence in the Petitioner and also to the Notification issued by the Collector, Puri (vide Annexure 3) removing the Petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch.

The Petitioner''s case is that the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nayagarh (opp. party No. (2) for convening of the special meeting on 31-8-1977 did not satisfy the requirements of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and as such the Resolution in Annexure 2 and the Notification in Annexure 3 are invalid in law.

The Collector, Puri and the Sub-divisional Officer. Nayagarh (opp. parties 1 and 2) have filed counter contending that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act were duly complied with.

Opposite parties 4 to 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 have also filed counter affidavit supporting the stand taken by opposite parties 1 and 2.

In a separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 3, 11, 14, 17 and 20 it is contended that as there was no Resolution proposed to be moved they did not attend the meeting on 31-8-1977.

The relevant provision of Section 24(2) of the Act are reproduced below:

(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, if any, as may be prescribed, subject however to the following provisions, namely:

xx xx xx

(c) the Subdivisional 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.

xx xx xx

The first contention of the Petitioner is that the provision regarding giving of notice at least fifteen clear days before the date fixed for the meeting has not been complied with. It is contended that though the Subdivisional Officer issued the notice on 11-8-1977 for convening a special meeting and fixed the date to 31-8-1977, it was only on 17-8-1977 that an attempt was made to serve the notice on opposite party No. 3 Gopal Mallick. It is asserted by opposite parties 4 to la, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 that the notice was received by all the members of the Grama Panchayat on 16-8-1977 except the Petitioner and his brother opposite party No. 3 - who avoided service of the notice. It is stated in their counter affidavit that when the attempt to serve the notices on the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 through a peon, failed on 16-8-1977 and 17-8-1977, the notices were sent by registered post. The notice sent to opposite party No. 3 by post was duly received by him, but the Petitioner avoided to accept the same even though he was present in the village. These averments have not seen controverted by the Petitioner. Rather it is admitted in para 3 of the writ petition that when the attempt to serve the notice on opposite party No. 3. through the peon of the B.D.O''s office failed on 17-8-1977, the notice was sent to him by post. In his counter affidavit the opposite party No 3 has not taken the plea of want of notice. His contention is that as there was no proposed Resolution to be moved, he did not attend the meeting on 31-8-1977. Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that a copy of the notice shall be published at least seven days prior to the date fixed for the meeting in the notice-hoard of the Samiti. It is maintained by the opposite parties that a copy of the notice was duly published on the notice-board of the Samiti and the Petitioner as Sarpanch was a member of the Samiti at that time. This averment has not been denied by the Petitioner. According to the Clause (e), the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated merely on the ground that the notice has not been received by any member. The ordinary meaning of the word ''notice'' is knowledge, information or announcement. On a proper construction of Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24, the legislative intention appears to be that a communication which carries knowledge of the fact that a no-confidence motion would be brought should be sent to the members. The provision of Section 24(2)k) regarding notice of at least fifteen dear days is directly in character and if there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the section, that is sufficient to uphold the validity of the notice and the proceedings of the meeting convened in pursuance thereof.

The next contention of the Petitioner is that there was no requisition for the meeting and there was also no proposed Resolution to be moved in the meeting. Admittedly Annexures 1/1 and 1/2 were sent along with the notice. Annexure 1/1 is the requisition which was signed by more than a third of the total number of members of the Panchayat. Annexure 1/2 is the Resolution which was proposed to be moved. The Petitioner''s contention IS that Annexures 1/1 and 1/2 are only in the nature of information about a Resolution having been already passed and there was no indication about any proposal to move the Resolution in the special meeting. In the notice (Annexure 1) issued by the Subdivisional Officer, Nayagarh it was clearly mentioned that the enclosures thereto were the requisition and the proposed Resolution. It was no doubt stated in Annexure 1/1 that a Resolution recording want of confidence in the Petitioner had been passed on 2-7-1977, but therein a request was made to the Subdivisional Officer, Nayagarh to take legal steps on the proposal to bring a motion of no-confidence. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is, therefore, without any force. It is clear from the proceedings of the meeting held on 31-8-1977 (Annexure-2) that the motion of no-confidence essentially on the same basis as contained in Annexure 1/2 was discussed in the meeting and was duly passed. Out of the total strength of 19 members of the panchayat including the Petitioner, 13 members voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. We hold that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of law and the Petitioner was duly removed from the Sarpanchship.

There is, therefore, no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

R.N. Misra, J.

I agree.

Writ application dismissed.