STATE OF ORIS SA AND ORS. versus MD. ILLIYAS

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 22-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF ORIS SA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MD. ILLIYAS 
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964; Section 115: 
Allegation of abuse of powers, rights and privileges against Sarpanch-
Suspensiorr-Challenge to-Quashed by High Court holding that pre-requisite C 
conditions for suspension not satisfied-On appeal, Held: Collector as 
empowered to suspend Sarpanch on the basis of an inquiry report and satisfying 
that his continuance would be detrimental to the interest of Gram Panchayat-
A reasonable opportunity to show cause could be granted only at the stage of 
his removal-Since Collector on the basis of enquiry report satisfied that the D 
Sarpanch had willfully abused the powers vested in him, High Court erred in 
quashing the order of his suspension relying on an earlier decision of the 
Supreme Court without looking into the facts and circumstances of that case-
Hence, judgment of the High Court indefensible. 
Words and Phrases: 
'wilful '-Meaning of in the context of Section I 15 of the Orissa Gram 
Panchayat Act, I 964. 
E 
Respondent, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, allegedly collected illegal 
gratification from the poor villagers by giving them false assurance to F 
provide houses under the Indira Avas Vojna. The Collector directed the ' 
Sub-Collector to inquire into the matter. After conducting inquiry, the sub-
collector submitted his report concluding that the Sarpanch had misused 
his powers. On the basis of the report, the Collector suspended the 
respondent-Sarpanch in purported exercise of the powers conferred on G 
him under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. The order 
was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition. High Court 
quashed the order on the ground that pre-requisite conditions before 
suspension as stipulated under Section 115(1) of the Act were not satisfied. 
Hence the present appeal. 
395 
H 
,. 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended by the appellant-State that the High Court is clearly 
in error in its analysis of Section 115(1) of the Act; that the Sub Collector's 
report is clearly indicative of the manner in which there was abuse of 
powers, rights and privileges vested in respondent, Sarpanch and as to 
how these acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Grama Panchayat 
B and inhabitants of the Grama; and that the Collector had categorically 
stated in his order that the acts were wilful in nature. 
Respondent submitted that by merely referring to the language of 
Section 115(1) of the Act the Collect~ould not have concluded that acts 
of the respondent were prejudicial act_s or amounted to abuse of powers 
C and rights and privileges vested in hifu; and that before the inquiry was 
conducted by the Sub-Collector the respondent was not granted any 
opportunity. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The Collector, on the basis of an inquiry or inspection or 
report of Sub~Divisional Officer, as the case may be, has to form opiniOn 
whether circumstances exist to show that the Sarpanch has wilfully omitted 
or refused to carry out or has violated the provisions of the Orissa Gram 
Panchanyat Act or the rules or orders made thereunder or 'has abused 
the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or has acted in a manner 
E prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama, and that further 
continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interest 
of the Grama Panchayat or inhabitants of the Grama. On formation of 
such opinion he may by order suspend the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, 
as the case may be, from office and report the matter to the State 
F Government. It is only at the stage of removal, a reasonable opportunity 
to show cause is to be granted to the concerned Sarpanch or Naib-
Sarpanch, as the case may be. [402-8-EJ 
2.1. For bringing in application of Section 115(1), the acts complained 
of must have been done wilfully by the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as 
G the case may be. Order of the Collector after referring to the acts 
purportedly done by the respondent/Sarpanch categorically stated that he 
was satisfied that the Sarpanch had wilfully abused the p~wers, rights and 
privileges vested in him and had acted in the manner prejudicial to the 
interest of the inhabitants of the Grama. [402-G, H) 
H 
2.2. An act is said to be 'wilful' if it is intentional, conscious and 
ST A TE OF ORIS SA v. MD. ILLIY AS 
397 
deliberate. The expressi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.