CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging a no-confidence motion in Gudari panchayat samiti in Rayagada district, holding that an MLA’s absence due to Assembly engagements cannot invalidate proceedings held under section 46-B of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959.
A single judge bench of Justice RK Pattanaik ruled that meetings for no-confidence motions can lawfully be convened even during Assembly or Parliament sessions, as neither the Act nor the Rules impose any such prohibition. The court clarified that the state government’s standing instruction dated September 30, 2009, advising against holding panchayat samiti meetings during legislative sessions is advisory in nature and cannot override statutory provisions.
The ruling came while disposing of two connected writ petitions filed by Gunupur MLA Satyajeet Gamango and Gudari panchayat samiti chairman Laxmi Sabar respectively. Both challenged notices dated July 11, 2025, and July 15, 2025, issued by the Gunupur sub-collector for initiating a no-confidence motion.
The MLA contended that he had a statutory right to participate and vote but could not do so as the meeting was scheduled on July 24, due to Assembly- related engagements.
The chairman separately alleged defective service of notice, absence of the requisition and resolution, lack of seven clear days’ notice, and an illegal adjournment barred under section 46-B(2)(f). Rejecting these claims, the court held that “a no confidence motion for a Panchayat Samiti in the State can be held even during Parliament/Assembly Sessions as the Act and Rules focus on requisition by the members (1/3rd) and time line fixed with no explicit bar”. It further observed that it was not demonstrated that the MLA or MP lacked adequate time to respond, noting that any intimation of inability was sent after the special m e e t i n g h a d concluded.
On the issue of adjournment, the judge drew a clear distinction between “adjournment” and “deferment”, holding that while section 46-B(2)(f) prohibits adjournment once a meeting is convened, it does not bar rescheduling prior to the meeting. He held that the rescheduling was a permissible “deferment” intended to allow members reasonable preparation time. Concluding that notices were duly served and the seven-day requirement complied with, the court held the challenge to be sans merit for any kind of intervention.