A Litigant Who Approaches the Court Must Come with Clean Hands: Orissa High Court Dismisses Petitions Against No-Confidence Motion

Orissa High Court in the case of Priyanka Gouda vs. State of Odisha dismissed petitions challenging the legality of a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson of the Purusottampur Notified Area Council (NAC). The petitioners had alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Odisha Municipality Act, 1950, but the Court found that proper procedure had been followed.

Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy emphasized, “A petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, putting forward all facts without concealing or suppressing anything. If the facts are not fully and fairly stated, the Court may dismiss the petition at the threshold.”

The case involved two writ petitions challenging a notice dated September 4, 2024, issued by the Collector of Ganjam district for holding a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson of the Purusottampur NAC. The petitioners, including the Chairperson and two Ward Members, argued that the notice violated Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipality Act as it was allegedly not accompanied by the required requisition and resolution.

The petitioners also claimed that seven of the nine councillors who signed the requisition had defected to another political party, rendering their requisition invalid under Section 46-A of the Act.

The Court examined whether the procedural requirements under Section 54(2) of the Odisha Municipality Act had been followed, specifically whether the notice was properly served and whether it included the necessary requisition and resolution.

Service of Notice: The petitioners contended that they had not received the requisition and resolution along with the notice. However, the Court found that the process server had affixed the notice, along with the requisition and resolution, on the petitioners' residences after they refused to accept them, satisfying the statutory requirement.

Defections of Councillors: The petitioners argued that seven councillors had defected and were no longer eligible to sign the requisition. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the defected councillors' disqualification was not determined at the time of the no-confidence motion.

The Court ruled that the petitioners had failed to disclose full facts in their petition, including the fact that the notice had been served through affixture. As such, the Court cited K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., emphasizing that a litigant who does not disclose material facts is not entitled to relief.

The Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the legality of the notice for the no-confidence motion and vacating the interim order that had temporarily stayed further action on the vote.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2024

Priyanka Gouda vs. State of Odisha & Ors.