Orissa HC Sets Aside No-Confidence Notice Against Sarpanch, Holds WhatsApp and Affixture Are Not Valid Modes of Service Under Section 24(2)(c)

The Orissa High Court quashed a no-confidence proceeding against a Sarpanch, ruling the prescribed authority failed to serve the requisition and proposed resolution alongside the notice, as mandated by the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, on 28 July 2026 allowed the writ appeal of Gyana Ranjan Dash, an elected Sarpanch, and set aside a no-confidence notice issued against him on 8 January 2026. The bench held that the prescribed authority had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, which obliges the Sub-Divisional Officer to accompany the notice with copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution. The bench went further than the Single Judge by ruling that WhatsApp and affixture at the appellant's residence are not modes of service recognised under the statute, and that a contemporaneous endorsement made by the Sarpanch on the notice itself was strong evidence of non-compliance.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The proceedings began with the issuance of a notice dated 8 January 2026 under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, calling a special meeting to consider a motion of no confidence against Gyana Ranjan Dash as Sarpanch. Dash challenged the notice in W.P.(C) No.2924 of 2026 before a Single Judge, arguing that the notice was not accompanied by copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution, as the statute requires. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14 July 2026, treating Dash's plea of non-supply as an afterthought. Dash then filed W.A. No.994 of 2026, the intra-court appeal decided by the Division Bench.

Mr. S.K. Dalai, appearing for Dash, pressed one central argument: Section 24(2)(c) mandates simultaneous service of the notice together with the requisition and the proposed resolution, and any deviation vitiates the proceedings at their root. Dalai pointed to two pieces of contemporaneous evidence — an endorsement recorded by Dash on the notice at the very moment of its receipt, and a subsequent representation to the prescribed authority — to show the plea was not an afterthought.

Mr. S.K. Baral, appearing for Respondent No.7, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution were dispatched through Speed Post, which was returned undelivered with the postal endorsement that the addressee had left without instruction. The documents were thereafter sent over WhatsApp and affixed at the appellant's residence. The State's position was that Dash had deliberately avoided receipt and raised the plea only to stall the democratic process of the no-confidence motion.

What Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act Requires

Section 24 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 governs the initiation of a motion of no confidence against an elected Sarpanch. Sub-section (2)(c) provides that the Sub-Divisional Officer, on receipt of a requisition, shall fix the date, hour and place of the special meeting and give notice to all members “along with a copy of the requisition and of the proposed resolution” at least fifteen clear days before the date fixed.

The Division Bench read the provision plainly: the statutory requirement is not satisfied by mere service of a notice convening the special meeting. The notice must necessarily be accompanied by copies of both the requisition and the proposed resolution. To hold otherwise, the bench reasoned, would render a substantial part of Section 24(2)(c) redundant.

The legislative purpose, as the bench saw it, is to ensure that the elected office bearer is informed not merely of the meeting, but of the foundation and subject matter of the proposed motion against him.

Where the Division Bench Parted Ways with the Single Judge

The Single Judge had already returned a categorical finding against the State on one issue: service of the requisition and the proposed resolution through WhatsApp or by affixture at the appellant's residence is not a mode of service recognised under Section 24(2)(c). The Division Bench agreed with this conclusion and adopted the reasoning from the Larger Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4218, that once a statute prescribes a particular mode of service, compliance must be in that manner and not otherwise.

The point of departure was the Single Judge's ultimate conclusion. Having discarded WhatsApp and affixture as valid modes, the Single Judge nonetheless dismissed the writ petition by labelling Dash's plea an afterthought. The Division Bench said this approach was legally unsustainable. Once those alternative modes were held to be outside the statute, the only question that survived was whether the notice that was admittedly served on Dash was accompanied by the requisition and the proposed resolution in strict compliance with the statute.

The bench stated that where the validity of a statutory proceeding is challenged on the ground of non-compliance with a mandatory procedural requirement, the burden rests on the prescribed authority to establish due compliance — the authority cannot rely on presumptions, particularly where the consequence is the removal of an elected representative.

The Endorsement on the Notice and Its Evidentiary Weight

The most concrete piece of evidence before the bench was the notice dated 8 January 2026 itself. At the time of acknowledging its receipt, Dash made a contemporaneous endorsement specifically recording that copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution had not been supplied to him. He also addressed a subsequent representation reiterating the same grievance.

The bench held that such an endorsement, forming part of the very transaction of service, carries considerable evidentiary value and substantially belies the State's contention that the statutory documents had accompanied the notice. The bench's reasoning was straightforward: had the requisition and the proposed resolution in fact been served together with the notice, there was no plausible occasion for Dash to record such an objection at the very moment of receipt.

The bench reinforced this by referring to the Supreme Court's observation in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda, reported in AIR 1966 SC 330, that the statutory obligation of giving notice is not discharged by its mere dispatch. Mere dispatch of the documents through Speed Post, without establishing due service, cannot amount to compliance with Section 24(2)(c).

The bench also drew support from the Privy Council decision in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, reported in 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41, and from Taylor v. Taylor, reported in [1875] 1 Ch. D. 426, 431, cited by the Single Judge, for the proposition that where a statute specifies a procedure, it must be followed in the manner prescribed.

Fresh Proceeding Remains Open

While setting aside the no-confidence proceeding in its entirety, the Division Bench made it clear that the order does not bar the prescribed authority from initiating a fresh proceeding for consideration of a motion of no confidence against Dash, if otherwise permissible in law. In such event, a fresh notice must be issued strictly in accordance with Section 24(2)(c), duly accompanied by copies of the requisition and the proposed resolution, and the entire procedure must thereafter be carried out in accordance with law.

Order

The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 28 July 2026, set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 14 July 2026 in W.P.(C) No.2924 of 2026. The notice dated 8 January 2026 issued under Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, and all consequential proceedings taken pursuant to it, were set aside. The writ appeal was allowed.