Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory

In a significant judgment impacting grassroots democracy in Odisha, a Full Bench of the Orissa High Court has held that a notice for convening a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 must mandatorily be accompanied by both a copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution. The Court ruled that failure to adhere to this statutory requirement renders the notice invalid and any resultant proceedings unsustainable.

The decision, delivered by Justices K.R. Mohapatra, Dixit Krishna Shripad, and Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, came in Writ Appeal No. 1367 of 2025 filed by Nabanita Kapat Patra, the elected Sarpanch of Hatimunda Grama Panchayat in Kandhamal district, who had challenged her removal on the ground that the statutory notice convening the meeting for the no confidence motion was defective.

The appeal arose out of a divergence in interpretation of Section 24(2)(c) by two earlier Division Benches of the Court. One bench, in Prahallad Dalai v. State of Odisha (AIR 2014 Ori 179), had held that both the requisition and the proposed resolution must accompany the notice, while another in Pramod Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha (W.A. No. 3473 of 2024) took a more relaxed view, asserting that as long as the members were made aware of the intent, the technical requirement could be read down.

Faced with these conflicting views, a Division Bench had referred the matter to a larger bench for authoritative interpretation.

Case Background

Nabanita Kapat Patra was elected as Sarpanch of Hatimunda Grama Panchayat in 2022. On 20 September 2024, eight out of fourteen Ward Members passed a draft resolution expressing no confidence in her leadership. A requisition was sent to the Sub-Collector on 8 October 2024 requesting that a meeting be convened.

Following an enquiry by the Block Development Officer confirming the genuineness of the request, the Sub-Collector issued a notice on 29 November 2024 scheduling the meeting for 16 December 2024. However, while the notice enclosed a copy of the requisition, it did not include the proposed resolution, a statutory requirement under Section 24(2)(c).

The appellant challenged this before the High Court, contending that the omission violated the mandatory statutory procedure and deprived her of a fair opportunity to respond. A learned Single Judge dismissed her petition on 1 August 2025, holding that the requisition and resolution were sufficiently communicated. She was voted out of office the following day.

Full Bench Findings

The Full Bench, after detailed analysis of the text, context, and constitutional background of the provision, ruled in favour of the appellant, holding that Section 24(2)(c) is mandatory and not directory. The Court emphasised that the consistent use of the word “shall” in clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Section 24(2) indicates a legislative intent to impose strict procedural safeguards in the removal of directly elected representatives like Sarpanchs.

The Court rejected the argument that substantial compliance suffices, observing:

“Once the notice has been given, its validity must be adjudged in the light of what has been prescribed… the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”

Further, the Court clarified that the omission of the proposed resolution from the notice deprived the elected Sarpanch of a fair opportunity to participate in the process, thus offending the principles of natural justice and the statutory safeguards built into the Panchayat law.

Relying on the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691, the Bench reaffirmed that election law is purely statutory, and any deviation from the statutory procedure cannot be condoned in the name of administrative convenience or expediency.

Overruling Pramod Kumar Sahu Case

The Full Bench overruled the Division Bench decision in Pramod Kumar Sahu, noting that its interpretation diluted the legislative intent and ran contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Act. The Bench affirmed the view taken in Prahallad Dalai, holding it to be the correct position of law.

It also clarified that harmonious construction has no application in this case because the language of Section 24(2)(c) is clear, unambiguous, and mandatory. The Court added that reading down the requirement would render parts of the statute otiose, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation.

With this authoritative pronouncement, the appeal stands allowed and the matter will now be placed before the roster bench for final adjudication in accordance with the interpretation provided. The ruling has significant ramifications for local governance across Odisha, reinforcing procedural rigor and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.

Democracy and Rule of Law

The Court underscored the gravity of removing a directly elected Sarpanch, stating that it is not a mere internal matter of the Panchayat but an action that nullifies the people’s democratic choice. It held that such a step can only be taken in strict compliance with the procedure laid down by law.

Key Takeaways

• The Sub-Divisional Officer must issue the notice under Section 24(2)(c) along with both the requisition and the proposed resolution.
• Failure to do so invalidates the notice and any subsequent no confidence motion.
• Procedural safeguards under election law cannot be bypassed even if the affected party had knowledge of the proceedings.
• Pramod Kumar Sahu decision is overruled; Prahallad Dalai is affirmed as laying down the correct law.
• The principle laid down in Jyoti Basu applies equally to Panchayat-level democratic institutions.
• Election law is to be strictly construed, and natural justice principles must be embedded in the procedure.

Date of Decision: 29 November 2025