No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court

"It is the settled position of law that no particular form/format has been prescribed for a proposed resolution. The intention of the requisitionists has to be gathered on a reading of the resolution," Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a notice for a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch cannot be quashed merely because the "proposed resolution" is not in a specific format.

A bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed that the primary requirement is for the requisitionists' intention to be clearly gathered from the resolution when read as a whole. The Court noted that as long as the grounds for the motion are disclosed and the intention to move the motion is clear, the statutory requirements of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 are satisfied.

The petitioner, Minatirani Madhei, who was elected as the Sarpanch of Jadida Grama Panchayat in 2022, challenged a notice issued by the Sub-Collector convening a meeting for a no-confidence motion against her. She contended that the document enclosed with the notice did not qualify as a "proposed resolution" under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. The petitioner argued that the enclosure was merely a resolution to send a requisition to the Sub-Collector rather than the actual draft of the resolution to be moved.

The primary question before the court was whether a "proposed resolution" under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act must follow a specific form or format to be legally valid. The court was also called upon to determine whether the intention of the ward members to move a no-confidence motion could be legally inferred from the text of the meeting minutes enclosed with the notice.

Statutory Requirements For No-Confidence Motion Notices

The Court began by examining the procedure laid down in Section 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. It noted that under Section 24(2)(c), the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon receiving a requisition, must fix the date, hour, and place of the meeting. This notice must be served to all members at least fifteen clear days before the meeting, accompanied by a copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution.

The bench referred to the Full Bench judgment in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal, which emphasized that the notice must contain the date, time, and place of the meeting and be accompanied by the proposed resolution. The Court reiterated that these procedural safeguards have existed in the statute for over six decades to ensure that the process of removing an elected official is transparent and follows due process.

Absence Of Prescribed Format For Proposed Resolutions

Addressing the petitioner’s main grievance, the Court clarified that neither the Act nor the rules prescribe a specific proforma for the "proposed resolution." The bench emphasized that the legality of such a resolution does not depend on its nomenclature or technical layout but on its substance. It held that the document must be read in its entirety to understand what the requisitioning members intended to achieve.

The Court observed that the purpose of requiring a proposed resolution is to ensure that the elected Sarpanch and ward members are fully informed of the specific grounds for the motion. The bench noted that if the intention of the requisite number of members is clear from the resolution adopted in the preliminary meeting, it must be accepted as a valid proposed resolution for the purpose of the Act.

"The intention of the requisitionists has to be gathered on a reading of the resolution as a whole."

Evaluating The Specific Grounds And Intent In The Resolution

In the present case, the Court scrutinized "Agenda Item No. 11" of the resolution passed by the ward members. It found that this item, when read alongside the preceding ten points which outlined various irregularities, clearly expressed the members' lack of confidence in the Sarpanch. The Court noted that the resolution specifically mentioned the dissatisfaction of the members and their collective decision to move the Sub-Collector for a no-confidence motion.

Justice Narasingh remarked that the intention to move the motion was unmistakable. The bench pointed out that ten ward members, representing more than the required one-third of the total sixteen members, had signed the requisition. Since the specific grounds were disclosed and the intent was clear, the Court held that the requirements of Sections 24(2)(a) and 24(2)(c) were substantially complied with.

"Agenda Item No.11 satisfied the requirements of a 'proposed resolution' under Sections 24(2)(a) and 24(2)(c) of the Act."

Distinction From Precedents Involving Total Absence Of Resolutions

The petitioner had heavily relied on the judgment in Smt. Kamala Tiria v. State of Orissa, where a no-confidence motion was set aside. However, the High Court distinguished that case on its facts. In Kamala Tiria, no separate document whatsoever evidencing a proposed resolution had been enclosed with the requisition. The Court noted that in the current case, a resolution was indeed enclosed, and the dispute was merely over its form.

The Court further relied on the principles in Prahallad Dalei v. State of Odisha, which held that a proposed resolution need not be on a separate sheet or document. The bench affirmed that if the minutes of the meeting held to prepare the requisition disclose the intent and grounds, those minutes themselves can be abstractly accepted as the proposed resolution. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's technical objections.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the impugned notice was within the statutory confines of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act. The Court vacated the interim order that had stayed the proceedings, thereby allowing the no-confidence motion process to move forward. The bench concluded that the petitioner failed to show any prejudice or lack of clear notice regarding the grounds of the motion.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2026