The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Sarpanch of Kandarai Gram Panchayat in Athagarh, Cuttack, who had challenged the notice initiating a no-confidence motion against him. Justice V. Narasingh, while ruling on the matter, held that though service of notice through WhatsApp and wall affixture cannot be treated as valid under the law, the personal service admittedly received by the Sarpanch was sufficient to meet legal requirements.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Gyana Ranjan Dash, an elected Sarpanch, had approached the court against a notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the Sub-Collector, Athagarh, for convening a no-confidence meeting. His counsel, Mr. S.K. Dalai, argued that the resolution and requisition were not attached to the notice, which he said violated Section 24(2)(c) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. The petitioner claimed he had endorsed his objection in vernacular upon receiving the notice on 12.01.2026 and later wrote to the Sub-Collector on 20.01.2026.
The State and other opposite parties, represented by Mr. P.K. Ray, Mr. S.K. Baral and Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, countered that copies were sent by speed post, WhatsApp, and also affixed on the petitioner's house, and that his stand was an afterthought.
Court's Observations
Relying on the Privy Council ruling in Taylor v. Taylor and the Supreme Court's judgment in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, along with the Larger Bench decision in Nabanita Kapat Patra v. Collector, the court noted that a power given in a particular manner must be exercised only in that manner. The bench observed that "such modes of service of notice through WhatsApp and affixture cannot be said to be in the manner prescribed under the statute for such service."
However, the court found it hard to accept the petitioner's version, especially since he could not explain how a photocopy of the notice ended up annexed to his own petition despite claiming he had handed it back to the messenger. The judge also flagged the eight-day delay before the petitioner raised any grievance, calling such conduct against common sense.
Decision
The High Court held there was no infraction of Section 24(2)(c) warranting interference and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
The earlier interim order restraining publication of the no-confidence motion result was also vacated.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Gyana Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Others
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 2924 of 2026
- Judge: Justice V. Narasingh
- Decision Date: 14 July 2026
