Notice For Sarpanch's Removal Can't Be Served Through WhatsApp Or Wall Affixture: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently held that notice for convening a meeting of Grama Panchayat for taking up 'no-confidence motion' against an elected Sarpanch must be served upon him personally, and any service through WhatsApp or by affixture of a copy thereof on residence wall is not permissible. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 92]

While finding fault with the aforesaid procedure and holding the same to be against the mandate of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 ('the 1964 Act'), the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh held–

“…this Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that such modes of service of notice through WhatsApp and affixture cannot be said to in the manner of prescribed under the statute for such service and as such cannot be held to due mode of service as envisaged under Section 26(2) of the Act, 1964.”

A notice under Section 24(2)(c) of the 1964 Act, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Athagarh (SDM), was allegedly served upon one Gyana Ranjan Dash (the petitioner), the Sarpanch of Kandarai Gram Panchayat, on 12.01.2026. The purpose of the notice was to apprise the petitioner of convening a meeting of Gram Panchayat to decide a proposed 'no-confidence motion' against him.

However, the petitioner alleged that the said notice was not accompanied by the removal proposal and requisition, which is a statutory pre-requisite under Section 24(2)(c) of the 1964 Act. Upon receiving the notice, he purportedly made an endorsement in vernacular by stating that the postal service lacks the aforesaid mandatory documents and returned the same.

Subsequently, he made a representation before the SDM on 20.01.2026 to ventilate his grievances, but in vain. Therefore, as an upshot, he filed this writ petition challenging the very notice. During the course of hearing, the State Counsel informed the Court that the notice along with the requisition as well as the proposal was sent to the petitioner through WhatsApp and the same were also affixed on his wall.

The question which arose for consideration was whether such alleged service through an electronic mode like WhatsApp or through wall-affixture be held as sufficient compliance of the requirement of personal service under Section 24(2)(c).

Justice Narasingh relied upon the Privy Council decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) to ingeminate the settled legal principle, i.e. when a thing is prescribed by law to be done in a certain manner, that must be done in that manner or not at all. Further placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector (2025), the Judge categorically held–

“Accordingly, it is held that the alleged service of the notice through WhatsApp and by affixture cannot be said to be in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964 and, therefore, cannot be relied upon by the Opposite Parties to sustain the issuance of notice.”

So far as the dispute regarding personal service of notice was concerned, the Government Counsel highlighted an annexure from the petition which contained a photocopy of the notice. Thus, it was argued that had the petitioner returned the notice for being defective, he could not have been able to place a photocopy thereof along with the petition. The Court found sufficient force in this submission.

The Court also raised eye-brows over eight-day delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the SDM seeking redressal of his grievances.

“It also does not stand to reason that an elected representative facing a no-confidence motion, who allegedly did not receive the resolution and the requisition along with the notice, admittedly received on 12.01.2026, would not immediately approach the authorities and would instead allow eight days to elapse before ventilating his grievance….Such conduct militates against common sense and the onus was solely on the Petitioner to justify the delay and Petitioner has not been able to discharge such burden.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition holding the same to be an “after-thought” intended only to deviate the Grama Panchayat meeting which sought to pass a no-confidence motion against the petitioner.

Case Title: Gyana Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 2924 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Ray, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate; Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 92

Click Here To Read/Download Order