R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Mandasahi Grama Panchayat within the district of Cuttack and the said Grama Panchayat has nineteen members in all including the Sarpanch. On 2 -6 -1976, sixteen members of the Grama Panchayat asked the Sub -Divisional Officer of Jagatsinghpur under Annexure -1 that a meeting of the Grama Panchayat be specially convened for consideration of a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and appended to the requisition a draft copy of the resolution (Annexure -2). On 4 -8 -1976, notice of the meeting was given by the Sub -Divisional Officer (opposite party No. 3) fixing it to 26 -8 -1976. On that day, thirteen persons voted in support of the resolution while six persons including the Petitioner voted against it. The resolution was passed. The Petitioner has asked for quashing the resolution and to require the opposite parties to refrain from giving effect to the same.
2. It is contended:

(a) The requisition had been withdrawn on 11 -7 -1976 and, therefore, no meeting could be held on the basis of the earlier requisition under Annexure -1;

(b) It is mandatory that a copy of the resolution has to accompany the requisition and it was not so done;

(c) The meeting and its proceedings are invalid on account of the fact that

(i) no resolution has been passed at the meeting as required under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act; and

(ii) for the order that the resolution may be validly passed, there must be compliance with the Rules made under the Grama Panchayat Act.

Reliance is placed on Rules 232, 238, 239, 241 and 242 of the Rules under the Act and it is contended that the resolution was neither proposed nor seconded not was there any debate as required under the Rules. In the circumstances, the resolution is not operative

3. The Panchayat Extension Officer has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4. Many of the members of the Grama Panchayat applied to be impleaded in the proceeding and leave having been given, they have also filed a separate counter affidavit.

4. On perusing the pleadings and hearing both sides, we are of the view that three questions arise for consideration. They are:

(2.)IS there a valid requisition?
Whether the requisition was withdrawn as a fact? And if so, can a requisition given under Section 24 of the Act be withdrawn?

(3.)HAS the resolution been passed as required under the Act?
5. Annexure -1 is the requisition dated 2 -6 -1976 addressed to the Sub -Divisional Officer. Annexure -2 is the draft resolution. At its foot, it has been clearly indicated that the members were of the view that the Sarpanch had lost the confidence on account of several defaults and irregularities and in the interests of the Grama Panchayat, it was not appropriate that the Sarpanch should continue to hold office any longer. Annexures 1 and 2 read together clearly show that there were both a requisition as also a draft resolution. The procedure indicated in Sub -section (2) of Section 24 of the Act has been substantially satisfied and we, therefore, find no merit in the first contention.