Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1783
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
VALMIKI MENEZES, J
Mr. Bernardo Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GOA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhijit Gosavi, Mr. Athnain Naik, Ms Krupa Naik, Mr. Gaurang Kerkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivdatt P. Munj
A member of the Panchayat may be removed for persistent failure to fulfill duties detrimental to the Panchayat's interests, especially involving personal benefit from illegal constructions.
Headnote:(A) Goa Panchayat Raj Act - Section 210-A - Removal from Panchayat Membership - Petition challenging the dismissal of the Petitioner as member of the Village Panchayat upheld; the Court found that the Petitioner was aware of illegal constructions within his jurisdiction and failed to act against them - Court ruled that persistent inaction and personal benefit derived from illegal structures amounted to a breach of duty and violation of the Panchayat Act - The order of removal for three years was deemed justified. (Paras 1, 2, 32, 38, 40)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Panchayat member, was removed under Section 210-A for failing to report and act against numerous illegal constructions, including those involving his family, in a no-development zone. (Paras 1, 6)
Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence showed the Petitioner had persisted in remiss duties detrimental to Panchayat interests by allowing illegal constructions. (Paras 36, 38)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was given adequate notice regarding allegations leading to removal? Whether the DOP's findings were justified in light of the evidence? Was the order of removal excessive? (Paras 8, 29, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The Petitioner, being aware of the illegal structures within his jurisdiction and failing to act, was found to have committed an offense warranting removal. The Director of Panchayats correctly applied the law in finding him unfit for office. (Paras 36-38)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed; order of removal from Panchayat upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to removal from panchayat. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. affidavit supporting illegal constructions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments against the removal order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court inquiry into illegal constructions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. understanding of panchayat powers. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. legal implications of constructions by family. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. show cause notice sufficiency. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. conclusion on removal justified. (Para 37 , 40) |
JUDGMENT:
1.The Petitioner has challenged a Judgment dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Panaji dismissing Panchayat Revision Application No.32/2024; by the impugned Judgment of 03.09.2024, the District Court has confirmed an order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Director of Panchayats in Panchayat Case No. DP/COMP./21/2023 by which the Director of Panchayats (DOP) has exercised jurisdiction in terms of Section 210-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act (the Act) and removed the Petitioner as a member of the Village Panchayat of Arambol with immediate effect, and rendered him ineligible to be re-elected as a Panchayat Member for the next three years.
2.The impugned orders are sought to be assailed, invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the following, amongst other grounds:
a) That the Petitioner being a democratically elected public representative, cannot be easily removed from office, more so when, the grounds mentioned in Section 210-A of the Act, for removal of the Petitioner as a member, have not been made out.
b) The Show Cause Notice issued by the DOP was vague, devoid of material particulars which made out a case for removal under Section 210-A , thus vitiating the entire proceedings, they being contrary to the principles of natural justice.
c) That Section 210-A does not confer a duty upon a Member of a Panchayat to take action against illegal construction within his ward; there is no individual responsibility or duty cast by the Act on a Member of the Panchayat to take action against illegal constructions. Hence, there being no jurisdiction in the DOP to act under Section 210- A against the Petitioner, the Authorities below have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders.
d) Assuming the members of the family of the Petitioner had indulged in illegal constructions under the Panchayat jurisdiction, the DOP has no jurisdiction to relate such an act to be an act of the Member of the Panchayat qua his role as a Sarpanch. Since the Petitioner has resigned as a Sarpanch, he does not have any duty as a Member nor is he vested with such powers that a Sarpanch could exercise to arrest illegal constructions.
e) That the conclusions and findings of the DOP and of the Revisional Court are perverse and not borne from any legal evidence on record.
3.The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in reply to the petition bringing on record various documents and orders in PIL (Suo Motu) WP No.3/2023 and WP No.724/2023, to contend that the Petitioner, his brothers, sister and other family members were all Respondents in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and have filed their affidavits therein; the DOP contends in the affidavit that the Show Cause Notice refers to the records of these petitions and the basic allegation against the Petitioner, that, first as a Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Arambol and as a Panchayat Member of Girkar Ward, from which the Petitioner was an elected representative/member in the Panchayat, he was fully aware of all the illegal constructions in this Ward, including his own or of his family members; it is further alleged that in terms of Section 210-A of the Act, and based upon the record of these petitions and the orders passed by this Court therein, a Show Cause Notice was served under Section 210-A , calling upon the Petitioner as to why he should not be removed from office.
4.The affidavit states that the Panchayat, by its affidavit and reports placed on the record of the aforementioned
