While setting aside the notice issued to a Sarpanch, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra clarified–

“…there should be a clear 15 days' notice in between the date on which the notice was dispatched by post and the date fixed for No Confidence Motion, and both the said dates are to be excluded while calculating clear 15 days' notice, which is mandatory.”

Chameli Ojha, the elected Sarpanch of Tikhiri Gram Panchayat in the district of Kendrapara was allegedly served upon a notice of 'no confidence motion' dated 27.07.2026, which was received by her father on 31.07.2026 in her absence. By the said notice, the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara fixed the meeting on 13.08.2026 at 11 AM.

The petitioner further alleged that the Collector, Kendrapara sent her the aforesaid notice dated 27.07.2026 again through speed post, which was received by the brother of the petitioner on 03.08.2026.

It was found by the petitioner that the notice received from the aforesaid two officials did not contain the copies of the resolution and the requisition, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grams Panchayats Act, 1964 ('the 1964 Act').

Therefore, she wrote both to the Sub-Collector as well as the Collector on 03.08.2026 and 06.08.2026, respectively, in order to attract their attention towards the procedural shortfall, but in vain. Being aggrieved, she impugned both the notice and the consequential proceedings initiated against her.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Pitambar Acharya argued though requirement of giving notice and fixing the margin of time between the date of notice and the date of meeting are mandatory, but the mode of service or the failure by any member to receive the notice at all or allowing him less than 15 clear days before the date of meeting will not render the meeting invalid. The said requirement, he submitted, is only directory as held by a Full-Bench in Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa & Ors. (1987).

The State also disputed the claim of the petitioner regarding non-receipt of copies of the resolution as well as the requisition by placing reliance upon the postal booking receipt, which showed the courier weighed 42 grams. Therefore, it was contended that in the absence of the two aforesaid documents, the notice would not have weighed that much.

The primary questions which fell for consideration were whether giving 15 days' notice along with copies of the proposed resolution and requisition is mandatory and if so, how the said 15 days' period is to be calculated.

Justice Mishra relied upon the law laid down by Sarat Padhi (supra) which held that the requirement of giving the notice as well as fixing the 15 days' margin of time between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting are mandatory pre-requisites, and non-compliance thereof shall render the notice invalid. However, it held that failure by any Member/Sarpanch to receive the postal courier containing notice is not fatal.

Similarly, another Full-Bench in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, Kandhamal & Anr. (2025) reaffirmed the statutory scheme under Section 24(2)(c) of the 1964 Act, which requires the notice to be accompanied by both resolution as well as requisition. The Bench therein held that the aforesaid requirement is mandatory.

Taking cue from both the Full-Bench judgments, the Court opined–

“Hence, on conjoint reading of both the Full Bench judgments, it is amply clear that giving 15 clear days' notice along with copies of the proposed resolution and requisition, as contemplated under Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, 1964, are mandatory. But the mode of service of notice and receipt of such notice are directory, meaning thereby, if the notice has been given with 15 clear days' before the date fixed for No Confidence Motion, non-receipt of the said notice by any Member or any shortfall of 15 clear days' in between the date of notice and the date fixed for the No Confidence Motion, counting the said period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice, shall not annul the said No Confidence Motion.”

On the point of calculation of 15 days period, the Bench relied upon the ruling in Nilambar Majhi v. Secy, to Govt. of Orissa Panchayat Raj Deptt. (2005) In the said judgment, the Court had ruled that the date of issue of notice would be the date on which it was actually dispatched, not the date of notice or the date when it was signed.

Therefore, it was held, there should be a clear 15 days' notice in between the date on which the notice was dispatched by post and the date fixed for No Confidence Motion, and both the said dates are to be excluded while calculating clear 15 days' notice, which is mandatory.

In the present case, however, the notice was dispatched on 29.07.2026 and the date fixed for the meeting was 13.08.2026, keeping merely 14 days period in-between. Thus, the Court highlighted the violation of mandatory statutory requirement and accordingly, set aside the notice and the consequential actions taken pursuant thereto.

Before parting, Justice Mishra deemed it apposite to suggest certain much-needed legislative changes, in the absence of which the procedural requirements are prone to misuse.

“It would be appropriate for the State Government to examine, and if considered necessary, initiate legislative action to amend Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1964, so as expressly to prescribe an available and reliable mode or modes of service, the manner of serving and evidencing delivery of the notice and its enclosures, and the relationship between dispatch, actual delivery and the requirement of fifteen clear days' notice. The amendment may also provide for an official record or certificate identifying the documents served, the date and mode of service, and the result of service, together with an appropriate alternative procedure where service cannot be effected despite reasonable efforts.”

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General & Senior Advocate along with Mr. P.K. Ray, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Tripathy, Advocate