Elected members must abstain from decision-making in matters involving relatives to uphold ethical standards, and appellate courts can grant stays with restrictions to maintain Panchayat functionality during appeals.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

1. Registry to waive objections and register the matter.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr. Kishan Kavlekar waives service on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Jay Mathew waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Tukaram Gawas Additional Government Advocate waives service for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

4. This petition takes exception to an order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the District Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 201B of the Panchayat Raj Act (the Act) has granted the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, a stay for 20 days, of an order dated 28.07.2025 of the Block Development Officer (BDO) holding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stood disqualified in terms of the provision under Sub Section 4 of Section 55 read with clause (d) of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act.

5. The Petitioner is the original complainant before the Village Panchayat of Rumdamol, Davorlim. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are elected members of the Panchayat from different Wards within the jurisdiction of this Panchayat. The Petitioner has initially filed several complaints before the Panchayat claiming that certain persons named in the complaint, who were directly related to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, had undertaken illegal constructions in lands within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat, contrary to planning regulations and without a construction licence under the Act. It is the Petitioner’s case that when these complaints were taken up at the monthly meeting of the Panchayat on 18.01.2024, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, attended this meeting and passed certain resolutions with regard to these structures, despite, these members being related to the persons who had allegedly constructed the structures illegally.

6. It is the Petitioner’s case that since the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, had a pecuniary interest in the lands/structures constructed, as aforesaid, the persons who had constructed the same being their close relations, they stood disqualified in terms of the provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 55 read with clause (d) of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act. An application to that effect was filed by the Petitioner before the BDO on 04.10.2024. After receiving notice of this application, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed their common reply to the application, admitting that although they were related to the parties mentioned in the complaint, they did not take part in the decision making process at the meeting of the Panchayat. The reply also states that no action was taken by the Panchayat, at the meeting, attended by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and no adverse impact or conflict of interest arose. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stated that the allegations in the application regarding pecuniary interest of the Panchayat members was baseless and unfounded. This reply is signed by the Advocate for the Respondents and has no supporting affidavit.

7. Thereafter, written arguments came to be filed by the parties before the BDO, who passed an order dated 28.07.2025, holding Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to have been disqualified.

The order dated 28.07.2025 of the BDO was assailed in a Revision filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the District Court, who after issuing notice to the Petitioner, and hearing the parti