JUDGMENT
A.K. Parichha, J.
1. Petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch of Kankubadi Grama Panchayat of Rayagada district in the election held in the year 2002, has challenged the notice dated 27.07.2004 issued by the opposite party No. 2 to conduct ‘No Confidence Motion’ against her as per the requisitions and resolution of some of the members of the said Grama Panchayat. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 15 days’ clear notice was not given to the members before holding the meeting proposed as ‘no confidence motion’. According to him. the notices were dispatched from the concerned Post Office on 29.07.2004 and the meeting was held on 13.08.2004 and, so the mandate of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act was not fulfilled. He submits that, for contravention of the provision under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act the notice dated 27.07.2004 and the meeting held on 13.08.2004 consequent to the said notice becomes illegal and needs to be quashed. Petitioner relies on Xerox copy of the postal receipt.
2. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that notices for the meeting were signed and dispatched on 27.07.2004, and accordingly 15 days’ clear notice was available to the members before the date of the meeting. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel produced the Issue Register of the Office of the Sub-Collector, Gunupur, the original file pertaining to the matter of vote of ‘no confidence’ against the petitioner and the original postal receipts regarding issue of the notices to the members.
3. In the cases of Sarat Chandra Padhi v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1988 (I) O.L.R. 76 and Smt. Heeramani Munda y. Collector, Keonjhar and Ors., , this Court, while interpreting the provision of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, have observed in clear terms that the date of signing of the notice by the Sub-Collector and the date of receipt of the notice by the members concerned are irrelevant and that the date of issue of the notice and the date of the meeting are only relevant in computing the period of 15 days. In those cases it was also clarified that in computing 15 days’ period, the date of issue of notice and the date of the meeting are to be excluded. In the present case, the file relating to ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner shows that Sub-Collector. Gunupur directed on 27.07.2004 for issue of notice fixing 13.08.2004 as the date of the meeting. The draft copy of the notice is also available in the file. The Issue Register of the Office of the Sub-Collector, Gunupur contains entries on 27.07.2004 about issue of notices to the members regarding ‘no confidence motion’ to be held on 13.08.2004. The original postal receipts produced shows that the notices were received and dispatched from the Post Office on 28.07.2004. The postal seals are available on these ‘Under Certificate of Posting’ sheets. From these documents there remains no doubt that the notices were signed and dispatched from the Office of the Sub-Collector, Gunupur on 27.07.2004 and were dispatched from Marathigud a Post Office on 28.07.2004. Admittedly, the meeting was held on 13.08.2004. Even if 27th and 28th July, 2004 are excluded as dates of issue and 13th August, 2004 is excluded as the date of meeting, still then clear 15 days’ period is available in between. So, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the mandates of Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act were contravened.
4. In the aforementioned situation, the impugned notice and the subsequent meeting dated 13.08.2004 are not illegal and cannot be quashed. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No cost.
P.K. Tripathy, J.
I agree.