Elected Representative Who Willfully Ignores Repeated Notices Cannot Later Claim Violation Of Natural Justice: Orissa High Court

"This Court is persuaded to hold that despite repeated opportunity having been afforded, the Petitioner did not choose to participate in the proceeding on his own volition. As such, he is estopped from raising any grievance relating to violation of the principles of natural justice." Orissa High Court, in a decisive ruling, held that an elected representative who deliberately fails to respond to multiple notices and avoids participation in disqualification proceedings cannot later seek to set aside such orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the disqualification pertains to a conflict of interest involving government contracts.

The Petitioner, Ramakrushna Kar, was the Naib Sarpanch of Kukudapali Gram Panchayat in Sambalpur. He was disqualified from his post by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sambalpur, vide an order dated April 10, 2026, under Section 26(3) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. The disqualification was based on findings that he had incurred a disqualification under Section 25(1)(n) of the Act by being a registered 'C' Class Contractor interested in subsisting government contracts within the Panchayat Samiti.

The primary question before the Court was whether the disqualification order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-furnishing of the complaint and enquiry reports. The Court was also called upon to determine whether a petitioner who willfully abstains from administrative proceedings is estopped from challenging the consequential order under writ jurisdiction.

Statutory Framework Of Disqualification Under The OGP Act

The Court began by examining the statutory mandate of Section 25(1)(n) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat (OGP) Act, which prohibits a person from being a member if they are interested in a subsisting contract made with the Grama Panchayat or the Samiti. The Bench noted that the disqualification proceedings were initiated following a complaint by the Sarpanch (Opposite Party No. 7), alleging the Petitioner’s illegal participation in tender processes for various construction projects, including the "Completion of Mukhyamantri Sabha Ghar."

"The Collector may suo motu or on receipt of an application... make such enquiry as he considers necessary and after giving the person whose disqualification is in question... make an order in that behalf which shall be final and conclusive."

Evidence Of Petitioner's Involvement In Government Contracts

The Court perused the factual reports submitted by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Jujumura. The reports established that the Petitioner was a 'C' Class Contractor bearing Registration No. 624SC233, valid until March 31, 2026. It was further revealed that he had entered into agreements for the execution of public works while holding the office of Naib Sarpanch. The Court found that these facts clearly brought the Petitioner within the ambit of Section 25(1)(n) of the OGP Act.

Repeated Opportunities Afforded To The Petitioner

Regarding the Petitioner's primary contention of a natural justice violation, the Court scrutinized the record of notices issued by the District Magistrate's office. It was found that notices were issued on November 1, 2025, December 17, 2025, and January 15, 2026, directing the Petitioner to appear and present his case. The Court noted that the Petitioner had received these notices, as evidenced by the endorsements on the case record, yet chose to remain absent on consecutive dates.

"It is seen that while passing the impugned order, Opposite Party No.2 took note of the complaint petition, the reports of the SDPO and the DPO, Sambalpur and upon consideration thereof, independently applied his mind and arrived at the finding."

The Doctrine Of Estoppel In Administrative Proceedings

The Court emphasized that natural justice is not a "straitjacket formula" and cannot be invoked by a party who has shown a lack of diligence. Since the Petitioner chose not to avail himself of the opportunities provided to him during the enquiry, the Court held that he was now legally estopped from raising grievances regarding the fairness of the procedure. The Bench remarked that the Petitioner's silence during the proceedings was a matter of his own volition.

"In the light of the above discussions, this Court is persuaded to hold that despite repeated opportunity having been afforded, the Petitioner did not choose to participate in the proceeding on his own volition. As such, he is estopped from raising any grievance relating to violation of the principles of natural justice."

Writ Petition Viewed As Abuse Of Process

Justice Narasingh observed that the Petitioner had failed to place any material on record during the writ hearing to justify his non-response to the repeated notices. Consequently, the Court characterized the writ application as an attempt to stall the democratic and legal consequences of disqualification. The Court held that the Collector had independently applied his mind to the material facts, and the decision lacked any legal infirmity.

"This Court is constrained to hold that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of law."

The Court concluded that the Petitioner had indeed incurred the disqualification and that the subsequent steps taken to conduct a fresh election for the post of Naib Sarpanch were in accordance with the law. The interim relief sought by the Petitioner to stay the new election notice was also refused.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the disqualification of the Naib Sarpanch. It held that the Collector's order was based on cogent evidence of contract involvement and that the Petitioner's failure to participate in the enquiry barred him from claiming a violation of natural justice. The Court underscored that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to shield individuals who deliberately bypass the administrative process.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2026