MLA’s absence for assembly duties can’t invalidate no-trust motion in panchayat samiti: Orissa high court

Cuttack: Orissa high court has ruled that absence of an MLA due to assembly engagements cannot invalidate a no-confidence motion in a panchayat samiti, holding that such meetings can be convened even during assembly or Parliament sessions. Dismissing two petitions, the court clarified that statutory provisions prevail over executive advisories.Justice R K Pattanaik delivered the judgment on Jan 6 while hearing petitions filed by Gunupur MLA Satyajeet Gamango and Gudari panchayat samiti chairperson Laxmi Sabar. Both had challenged notices dated July 11 and July 15, 2025, issued by Gunupur sub-collector, for initiating a no-confidence motion under Section 46B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.Gamango argued that he had a right to participate and vote in the motion but could not attend as the meeting on July 24, 2025 coincided with his assembly-related duties. He relied on a 2009 govt instruction advising that panchayat samiti meetings should not be held during assembly or Parliament sessions. Sabar alleged defective serving of notice, non-supply of the requisition and resolution, violation of the mandatory seven-day notice period and an illegal adjournment of the meeting.Rejecting the contentions, the court held that “a no confidence motion for a panchayat samiti in the state can be held even during a Parliament/assembly session as the Act and Rules focus on requisition by the members (1/3rd) and time line fixed with no explicit bar”. Justice Pattanaik further observed that the 2009 instruction of the panchayati raj department is “advisory in nature” and cannot be used to defeat a process expressly governed by statute.The court noted that notices were duly issued and allowed seven days to all members, including the MLA and MP concerned. It also recorded that any intimation regarding their inability to attend was sent only after the special meeting had concluded and that serving of notice by post stood proved on record.The court drew a distinction between adjournment and deferment, holding that while the law bars adjournment once a no-confidence meeting is convened, it does not prohibit rescheduling prior to the meeting. “Law clearly prohibits adjournment and not deferment of the motion,” the court said in the order uploaded on Jan 9, accepting the administration’s explanation for rescheduling.Holding that the no-confidence motion had already been validly held and concluded, the court found no ground for interference and dismissed both writ petitions. The no-confidence motion was passed on July 24, but results were not declared due to an interim order of the court which restrained declaration until further orders. Accordingly, the court vacated the interim order.