IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
BHARATI DANGRE, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Hilario Pereira S/o Late Joao Pereira - Petitioner
Versus
State of Goa, through Chief Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 116 of 2025
Decided On : 23-04-2025
(A) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 10(f), 11, and 12 - Disqualification of Panchayat Members - The State Election Commission refused to entertain a petition for disqualification of elected members on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that disqualification can only be determined post-election by the Director of Panchayat. The court found that the Election Commission has jurisdiction to determine disqualification under Section 11, which includes post-election disqualifications. (Paras 1, 6, 15, 30)
(B) Jurisdiction of Election Commission - The court ruled that the Election Commission is competent to decide on disqualifications incurred after election, contrary to the Commission's assertion of lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 30)
(C) Interpretation of Statutory Provisions - The court emphasized the need for a holistic interpretation of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, aligning it with constitutional provisions regarding disqualification. (Paras 19, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought disqualification of eleven members of the Village Panchayat for receiving unauthorized payments from Panchayat funds, alleging they incurred disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Act. The Election Commission dismissed the petition citing lack of jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Election Commission's order, affirming its jurisdiction to hear disqualification petitions and restoring the proceedings for expeditious resolution.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the State Election Commission has jurisdiction to determine disqualifications of elected Panchayat members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Election Commission has the authority to determine disqualifications incurred after election, as per Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, and that the Commission's refusal to entertain the petition was erroneous.
Result: The impugned order of the State Election Commission was quashed and set aside, with directions to restore proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Bharati Dangre, J.
1. The Petitioner, a voter in ward 9 for Part no. 26 in St. Andre Constituency is aggrieved by the decision of the Goa State Election Commission, Panaji, Goa, in refusing to entertain him when he approached the Commission seeking disqualification of the eleven Members of Village Panchayat St. Lawrence in terms of Section 19(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for short 'Act of 1994').The relief is refused to the Petitioner on the ground that once the candidate becomes a Member of the Panchayat, his/her removal can be only on the specified grounds of misconduct and the proceedings in which regard shall be filed before the Director of Panchayat under the Act of 1994 and the application under Section 10(f) filed by him cannot be entertained as the Commission lack jurisdiction in this regard.
2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Padiyar for the Petitioner, Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the State of Goa, Mr. Somnath Karpe appearing for the Goa State Election Commission. Mr. Shivan Desai represent Respondent nos. 3, 7 and 10, Mr. Jatin Ramaiya represent Respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. Galileo Teles, learned Counsel, represented Respondent no. 4, before us.
Since the limited question that fall for our consideration, revolve around interpretation of Section 10 of the Act of 1994 with specific reference to the words “for being chosen as” and “for being a Member of the Panchayat” along with Sections 11 and 12, by consent of the parties, we issue 'Rule' and take up the Petition for final hearing at the stage of admission.
3. The background facts disclose that the general election to Village Panchayats in Goa was conducted on 10.08.2022 and this included the election to the Respondent no. 14-Panchayat of St. Lawrence of Agacaim, wherein the Respondent nos. 3 to 13 in the Petition came to be elected as Panch Members.
Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence of Agacaim comprise of eleven Members, to be elected from eleven different wards within the jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat. The Panchayat being a local authority, is governed by the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act of 1994, which has set out the procedure for the Management of affairs of the Panchayat.
4. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent nos. 3 to 13, suffered disqualification, since each of the Member received monetary share and interest in their name in the tender work undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat. It is specifically alleged that the payment received in the name of each of them has been credited in their bank account from the saving account of Village Panchayat and that there was no resolution passed by the Village Panchayat for issuing the cheques in their names neither there is any reason to part with the Panchayat fund by crediting into the accounts of the Respondents but, without authority of law, the Respondents have received huge amounts. The Petitioner has offered the detailed of these payments received by each of the Respondents in paragraph no. 6 of the Petition and has also offered details of the work against which the amount is received by them as Members of the Panchayat.
Stating that the Respondent nos. 3 to 13 being the elected as Member, they are in receipt of monetary remuneration from the Government of Goa and, therefore, it is not open for them to receive any payment, which is not due and payable to them, a serious accusation is levelled that in the tender work floated by the Panchayat to be undertaken, within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat, cheques were directly issued in the name of Respondent nos. 3 to 13 and they have availed monetary interest for the work done within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat and on behalf of the Panchayat. It is therefore the specific case of the Petitioner that the Respondent nos. 3 to 13 have incurred a disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, and they are disqualified to hold the post of Me
The State Election Commission has jurisdiction to determine disqualifications of elected Panchayat members, including those incurred post-election, under Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
The District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to remove a Panchayat member based solely on disqualification claims; such matters must be handled through an election petition post-election results, adh....
Point of law: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 175 (1)(q) and Section 177 (1) must fail. The right to contest an election for any office in Panchayat is neither fundamental nor....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the timely submission of election expenses and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the District Collector's disqualifi....
No appeal can be filed before Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by Collector under Section 14B(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member ....
Disqualification under Section 14(1)(d) of the Panchayats Act applies automatically post-removal under Section 39, upheld by the court highlighting the legal effects of interim orders.
A member of local authority is disqualified upon violating party whip, regardless of subsequent elections. Disqualification decision operates from the date of declaration by the Election Commission.
Point of Law : In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute, after election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.