The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the subsistence of a government contract and the continuing responsibility of the candidate under the contract as grounds for disqualification.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

1. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 10/11/2014, passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Panchayat Election Petition No.24/2012. By the said judgment, the Election Petition filed by the first respondent has been allowed, by which the election of the petitioner (the respondent before the Administrative Tribunal) from Ward No.VI of Bandora Village Panchayat, has been declared void.

2. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus :

That the petitioner and first respondent were the contesting candidates for the election to Ward No.VI of Bandora Village Panchayat, Taluka Ponda. The election was held on 16/05/2012. The results were declared on 17/05/2012, wherein, the petitioner was declared elected. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the first respondent before the Administrative Tribunal. The case made out in the petition was that the petitioner is a registered Government Contractor and has executed several Government contracts. One such contract was for construction of a footpath near Naga Masjid at Kurti in Ponda Constituency, which contract was subsisting on the date of filing of the nomination i.e. on 26/04/2012. The date of completion of the work as per the said contract was 17/06/2012. It was, thus, contended that the petitioner was disqualified to contest the election in view of Section 10A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act of 1994, for short) read with Section 9A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 ('Act of 1951', for short).

3. The petitioner contested the matter. It was contended that the Election Petition was not maintainable as the dispute as regards disqualification under Section 10 of the Act of 1994 has to be decided by the Election Commission. It was contended that Section 9A of the Act of 1951 was not applicable to a local body. It was further contended that the civil work of construction of the footpath undertaken by the petitioner was within the limits of Village Panchayat Kurti-Khandepar, Taluka Ponda, whereas he had contested the election from Ward No.VI of Bandora Village Panchayat. The material contention was that the contract was not subsisting as on the date of filing of the nomination, as the civil work of construction of the footpath was completed by the end of February, 2012. It was contended that the measurement of the work was carried out and the bill was prepared by PWD on 07/03/2012. In short, it was contended that the petitioner has discharged all the obligations under the said contract before the end of February, 2012 and as such, there was no subsisting contract as on the date of filing of the nomination.

4. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues :

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent no.1 is disqualified for being chosen as member of Village Panchayat of Bandora under Section 10(a) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 r/w Section 9A of the representation of the Panchayat Act, 1951'

2. Whether the petitioner proves that there was subsisting contract of the respondent no.1 with the Government for execution of work undertaken by the Government at the time of Panchayat Election;

3. Whether the respondent proves that the contract was concluded before filing of nomination of Panchayat Election;

4. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is not maintainable and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same; and

5. What prayer, what relief."

5. The petitioner and the first respondent examined themselves in respect of their respective contentions.

6. The Tribunal found that the Election Petition was maintainable. It was further found that there was a subsisting contract, as on the date of the nomination and the petitioner had failed to establish that the contract stood concluded as on that date. In that view of the matter, the petition was allowed, declaring the ele