Court holds mandatory 15 clear days' notice with requisition and proposed resolution must be strictly complied with under Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964; mere postal envelope weight insufficient to prove service of enclosures
In a significant judgment dated October 28, 2026, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, set aside the notice dated July 27, 2026, issued under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, for convening a special meeting to consider a Motion of No Confidence against Chameli Ojha, the elected Sarpanch of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat, Kendrapada district. The Court also quashed all consequential proceedings arising from the impugned notice.
The petition was filed by Chameli Ojha challenging the legality and validity of the notice and the decision of the Sub-Collector, Kendrapada, to convene the meeting on August 13, 2026. The petitioner contended that the statutory notice was served improperly-first on her illiterate father without copies of the requisition and proposed resolution, and then by Speed Post without the mandatory fifteen clear days' notice before the meeting. The petitioner further submitted that the requisition and proposed resolution, which are statutorily required to accompany the notice, were never provided.
The State and other respondents denied these allegations, asserting that the notice along with the required enclosures were dispatched by Speed Post on July 28, 2026, and that all ward members, including the petitioner, received them. The State relied on bulk postal booking receipts indicating the envelopes weighed around 42 grams to argue that the enclosures must have been included.
The Court carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions of Section 24(1) and (2) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, which govern the procedure for no confidence motions against a Sarpanch. The key statutory requirements are:
- A requisition signed by at least one-third of the Gram Panchayat members with a copy of the proposed resolution must be submitted.
- The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) must fix the meeting date and issue notice to all members along with copies of the requisition and proposed resolution at least fifteen clear days before the meeting.
- The notice must be sent by post under certificate of posting and published on the Samiti notice board at least seven days before.
The Court addressed five critical questions:
1. Whether the requirement of giving fifteen clear days' notice along with copies of requisition and proposed resolution is mandatory.
2. How the fifteen clear days' notice should be calculated.
3. Whether there was any shortfall in the notice period in the present case, and if so, whether it invalidates the no confidence motion.
4. Whether the State established compliance with mandatory prerequisites.
5. Whether the State's reliance on the postal envelope weight to prove enclosures were sent is acceptable.
Relying on prior Full Bench judgments of the Orissa High Court, including Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa (AIR 1988 Orissa 116) and Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal (2025 (III) ILR-CUT-1221), the Court clarified that:
- The delivery of notice and the margin of time of fifteen clear days between notice and meeting are mandatory.
- The mode of service or failure to receive notice by a member is only directory, meaning short service or non-receipt does not automatically invalidate the meeting.
- However, the notice must be accompanied by the requisition and proposed resolution, and this requirement is mandatory.
Regarding the computation of the fifteen clear days' notice, the Court held that the relevant date is the actual date of dispatch of the notice by post, excluding both the date of dispatch and the date of the meeting itself. In the instant case, the notice was dispatched by Speed Post on July 29, 2026, and the meeting was fixed for August 13, 2026. Excluding these two dates leaves only fourteen clear days-one day short of the statutory requirement.
The Court further rejected the State's contention that the shortfall could be cured under Section 24(2)(e), which provides that proceedings shall not be invalidated merely because a member did not receive the notice. The Court distinguished between short service (which is directory) and failure to provide the mandatory fifteen clear days before the meeting (which is mandatory).
On the question of whether the enclosures were sent along with the notice, the Court found no cogent evidence. The State's reliance on the bulk postal receipts and the weight of the envelopes was deemed insufficient proof that the requisition and proposed resolution accompanied the notice. This finding was consistent with the Division Bench judgment in Manamati Pujari v. State of Odisha (2025), which held that weight alone cannot establish that enclosures were sent.
Moreover, the petitioner's representations dated August 3 and 6, 2026, claiming non-receipt of the enclosures, were not specifically denied or responded to by the State in its affidavits. This further weakened the State's claim of compliance.
The Court expressed concern over practical difficulties arising from the current statutory provisions, noting that the prescribed mode of sending notices "by post under certificate of posting" has been discontinued. The Court observed that this creates uncertainty in proving both dispatch and contents of the notice and enclosures.
The Court recommended that the State Government consider legislative amendments to prescribe reliable modes of service and proof of delivery for no confidence proceedings. Such amendments should clarify the relationship between dispatch, actual delivery, and the fifteen clear days' notice requirement, and provide for official records or certificates of service.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court ruled that the notice dated July 27, 2026, was vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. The Court set aside the notice and all consequential actions, thereby protecting the petitioner from an invalid no confidence motion. No costs were imposed.
This judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in democratic processes at the grassroots level, ensuring elected representatives receive proper and timely notice with all relevant documents to defend themselves effectively.
Bottom Line:
Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 - No confidence motion against Sarpanch - Notice under Section 24(2)(c) must be accompanied by copies of requisition and proposed resolution and there must be clear 15 days between date of dispatch of notice and date of meeting, excluding both dates - Non-compliance vitiates notice and consequential proceedings - Mere weight of postal envelope cannot prove enclosures were sent.
Statutory provision(s): Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 Section 24(1), Section 24(2)(a), Section 24(2)(b), Section 24(2)(c), Section 24(2)(d), Section 24(2)(e)
Chameli Ojha v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3005190
