In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has clarified that the absence of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) due to state assembly engagements cannot invalidate a no-confidence motion proceedings in a panchayat samiti. The court held that such meetings can legally be convened even during sessions of the assembly or Parliament.
Court Dismisses Petitions, Upholds Statutory Provisions
The single bench of Justice R K Pattanaik delivered this judgment on January 6, while hearing two separate writ petitions. The petitions were filed by Gunupur MLA Satyajeet Gamango and the chairperson of Gudari panchayat samiti, Laxmi Sabar. Both had challenged notices dated July 11 and July 15, 2025, issued by the Gunupur sub-collector for initiating a no-confidence motion under Section 46B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.
The court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them both. It firmly established that statutory provisions prevail over executive advisories. The judgment, which was uploaded on the court's website on January 9, has cleared the way for the declaration of the results of the no-confidence motion that was passed back in July.
Key Arguments and the Court's Reasoning
MLA Satyajeet Gamango's primary contention was that he had a right to participate and vote in the motion but was unable to attend the meeting scheduled for July 24, 2025, as it coincided with his duties in the state assembly. He relied on a 2009 government instruction from the panchayati raj department, which advised against holding panchayat samiti meetings during assembly or Parliament sessions.
Chairperson Laxmi Sabar raised several procedural objections, including:
- Defective serving of the notice.
- Non-supply of the requisition and resolution.
- Alleged violation of the mandatory seven-day notice period.
- Claiming an illegal adjournment of the meeting.
Justice Pattanaik rejected all these arguments. The court held that the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act and its Rules focus on the requisition by one-third of the members and a fixed timeline, with no explicit bar on holding meetings during legislature sessions. The judge observed that the 2009 government instruction is "advisory in nature" and cannot be used to defeat a process expressly governed by statute.
Distinction Between Adjournment and Deferment
The court made a crucial legal distinction that impacted the case. It clarified that while the law prohibits the adjournment of a no-confidence meeting once it has been convened, it does not bar the deferment or rescheduling of the meeting before it takes place. "Law clearly prohibits adjournment and not deferment of the motion," the order stated, accepting the administration's explanation for changing the date.
The bench also noted factual findings:
- Notices were duly issued, allowing the full seven-day period to all members, including the concerned MLA and MP.
- Any intimation regarding their inability to attend was sent only after the special meeting had concluded.
- The serving of notice by post was proven on record.
Concluding that the no-confidence motion had been validly held and concluded, the court vacated an interim order that had restrained the declaration of the results. The motion was passed on July 24 itself, but its results were withheld due to the court's earlier order.
