JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith; the petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties.

2. The short point, for my consideration is whether the Director of Municipal Administrator (DMA) is vested with powers, delegated or otherwise, under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (Municipalities Act) to pass orders and exercise jurisdiction for removal of a Councillor from office for acts of misconduct or disgraceful conduct.

3. The petition has been filed on the following short facts;

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1, who is a Councillor of the Ward No.1 of Sanguem Municipal Council from the year 2021 has allegedly fraudulently obtained a construction license for construction of a commercial and residential building in the property surveyed under survey no.02/07 of Sanguem village of Sanguem taluka and has acted contrary to the Construction license issued to him; it is alleged that despite directions from the Deputy Town Planner, Quepem, the Chief Officer Sanguem Municipal Council failed to look into the matter. Several other allegations are made by the Petitioner against Respondent No.1 and his wife alleging several irregularities in the construction done by them, and in obtaining a false Caste Certificate, on the basis of which, corrupt practises are alleged during the contest of the election. On these allegations the Petitioner filed a Complaint dated 18.04.2023 to the DMA, Panaji against the Respondent No.1 which was also addressed on 28.06.2023 to the Chief Secretary, seeking redress and removal of Respondent No.1 from her office.

4. After hearing the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the DMA, Panaji vide its Judgement and order dated 29.09.2023, impugned herein, dismissed the said complaint on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 and further held that such powers are vested in the Government. The Petitioner filed the present Petition seeking to set aside the order and for directions to the Director of Urban Development to decide the said Complaint in accordance with section 44 of the Municipalities Act.

SUBMISSIONS

5. The Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. John Lobo submits that the Director has the power to make rules which is delegated vide Gazette Notification No.26/1/88-GA & C dated 29.08.1996. He further submitted that if the Director of Municipal Administration did not have the power to adjudicate upon the complaint then it should have forwarded the complaint to the Government for its decision. It is further submitted that the Director of Municipal Administration has been appointed as Secretary /Joint Secretary of the Government and the aforementioned Gazette Notification and the DMA acts as a delegate of the Government and is empowered to pass orders and take action in terms of Section 44 of the Act. To support his arguments, he placed reliance on Savio Norvin Menezes and 2 Ors. V/s Union of India and 2 Anr.,[Judgement dated 04.04.2025 passed in Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.966 of 2025(F) in the High Court of Bombay at Goa].

6. The Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, Mr V.A Lawande has advanced the following submissions:

a. It was submitted that the power to delegate the functions of the Government under the Act must be specific, and the Act does not confer any such delegation to the Government of Goa; it was further submitted that the Gazette Notification referred to by the Petitioner is not one which is issued pursuant to any powers of delegation under the Municipalities Act but is in the form of an executive decision by which the Directors and other officers of the Government have been appointed as Ex-Officio Secretaries and Joint Secretaries of the Government, only for the purpose of carrying out secretarial work and sign communications, orders and notifications on behalf of the Government, after receiving approval from the Secretary/Minister /Chief Minister. It