Stay on Disqualification Must Be Conditional; Disqualified Members Can Attend But Not Vote or Deliberate: Bombay High Court - 2025-08-09

Bombay HC: Blanket Stay on Disqualification Improper; Disqualified Panchayat Members Barred from Voting

Panaji, Goa - In a significant ruling on the conduct of elected officials, the Bombay High Court at Goa has modified a lower court's order, imposing strict conditions on four Panchayat members who were disqualified for alleged conflict of interest. Justice Valmiki SA Menezes held that while a stay on a disqualification order is permissible, it cannot be a blanket approval allowing the members to fully participate in official proceedings.

The court ruled that the four members of the Rumdamol Davorlim village panchayat can attend meetings to mark their presence but are barred from deliberating, voting, or participating in any proceedings pending a final decision on their disqualification.

Case Background: Allegations of Pecuniary Interest

The matter originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Mukesh Eknath Naik, who alleged that four elected members of the Rumdamol Davorlim Panchayat—Mrs. Mubina Bi Faniband, Mr. Mohammed Samiulla Faniband, Mr. Mohammed Mustafa Dodmani, and Mrs. Zubeda Bi Abubakar Agasar—participated in a Panchayat meeting on January 18, 2024. The meeting's agenda included discussions on complaints about illegal constructions allegedly carried out by the members' own close relatives (father and father-in-law).

Mr. Naik contended that their participation constituted a conflict of interest under Section 55(4) read with Section 12(1)(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Following an inquiry, the Block Development Officer (BDO) on July 28, 2025, found merit in the complaint and passed an order disqualifying the four members.

The disqualified members challenged the BDO's order before the District Court, which granted a 20-day blanket stay on their disqualification on August 2, 2025. Mr. Naik then approached the High Court, challenging the unconditional nature of this stay.

Arguments in the High Court

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Gaurish Agni , argued that an unconditional stay allows disqualified members to continue wielding power, including voting in crucial elections like that for the Sarpanch. He asserted that if a stay was granted, it should have been conditional, restraining them from official duties, a principle well-established in law.

Respondents' Counsel, Mr. Parag Rao , defended the District Court's order, stating it was a prima facie decision based on perceived weaknesses in the BDO's order. He argued that democratically elected representatives should not be easily unseated and that the stay was necessary to protect their right to contest for the post of Sarpanch.

High Court's Analysis: Balancing Rights and Propriety

Justice Menezes delved into established legal principles, heavily citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v/s Shri Raj Narain . The court observed that while a higher judicial forum has the power to stay a disqualification order, it must also consider the consequences of such a stay.

The court noted key undisputed facts: - The respondents were indeed present at the meeting where complaints against their own relatives were discussed. - At the time, Respondent No. 1 (Mubina Faniband) was the Sarpanch and Respondent No. 2 (Mohammed Faniband) was the Deputy Sarpanch. - The members did not deny their relationship to the individuals accused of illegal construction.

The High Court found that the District Court's decision to grant a blanket stay was primarily based on the incorrect premise that the impending Sarpanch election would become infructuous. Justice Menezes clarified that the posts of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch had fallen vacant due to prior resignations, not the disqualification order.

In a crucial observation, the court stated:

"On the facts of this case, and the prima facie conclusions which are evident from the pleadings before the BDO, this is a case that required restrictions to be imposed on the participation of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in line with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi (supra)..."

The court concluded that granting a blanket stay would "amount to granting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 the full right to act in every manner that a sitting member of the Panchayat is conferred with," which was inappropriate given the existing disqualification order against them.

The Final Order

The High Court modified the District Court's order, striking a balance between preserving the members' seats pending their appeal and upholding the integrity of the Panchayat's functioning. The final order states:

1. The stay on the BDO's disqualification order dated July 28, 2025, is confirmed.
2. However, during the pendency of their revision application, the four respondent members shall not take part in any proceedings, deliberate, or vote in the meetings of the Village Panchayat of Rumdamol, Davorlim.
3. They are permitted only to attend meetings and sign the register to maintain their membership.

The High Court also directed the District Court to expedite the hearing of the revision application and dispose of it preferably by August 22, 2025, to ensure the Panchayat's functioning is not impaired for long.