Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa considered a writ petition seeking quo warranto to remove an elected member of a village panchayat. The petitioner, a resident of Mandrem, Pernem, Goa, challenged the election of Respondent No.3 as a Pancha from the Mandrem village panchayat constituency. The dispute arose from the fact that Respondent No.3's name appeared in the electoral rolls of both the Mandrem and Mapusa Legislative Assembly constituencies. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.3 had shifted his name to Mapusa on 5 January 2022 but continued to appear in the Mandrem roll, allowing him to contest and win the panchayat election from Mandrem by fraudulently suppressing this change. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that dual enrolment violated Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which prohibits registration in more than one constituency. He relied on two precedents: Suresh Choudhary v. Atarlal Verma (2006) and K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan (1999), to argue that quo warranto can issue despite failure to file an election petition. The Advocate General, appearing for Respondent No.2, contended that the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 governed qualifications and disqualifications for panchayat membership. Under Section 9 of that Act, a person whose name is in the voters list for a ward is qualified unless disqualified under the Act or any other law. Section 10 enumerates specific disqualifications, none of which were pleaded against Respondent No.3. Since Respondent No.3's name was admittedly enrolled in the Mandrem Legislative Assembly electoral roll, he was not disqualified, and therefore quo warranto could not issue. The court examined Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act and found that the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly is deemed to be the voters list for panchayat wards. No ground under Section 10 was alleged. The court further noted that the petitioner had not objected to the inclusion of Respondent No.3's name in the Mandrem electoral roll during revision or within the limitation period, despite knowing about the alleged dual enrolment. The only excuse offered was unawareness, which the court found insufficient. The court also found no fraud or suppression: the record showed that Respondent No.3's wife had objected to inclusion in Mapusa roll, and a Block Level Officer's field visit confirmed that Respondent No.3 and his wife had shifted residence to Mandrem. Based on that report, their names were included in the Mandrem roll. The petitioner's vague allegations about limitation and lack of specific order were unsubstantiated. Concluding that no case of disqualification was made out, the court dismissed the writ petition and refused to issue quo warranto. The decision affirmed that dual enrolment may be an electoral roll irregularity but does not automatically disqualify a candidate under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, and that remedy by quo warranto is not available absent a statutory disqualification.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Panchayat Qualifications - Electoral Roll Deemed Voters List - Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Sections 9 and 13 - Section 13 makes the Legislative Assembly electoral roll the list of voters for Panchayat wards, and Section 9 qualifies every person whose name appears in that list unless disqualified. The court held that Respondent No.3's name was enrolled in the Mandrem Legislative Assembly electoral roll, thus he was qualified, and no writ of quo warranto could issue. (Paras 10, 12) B) Election Law - Disqualifications - Enumerated Grounds Exhaustive - Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 10 - Section 10 lists disqualifications in clauses (a) to (g), but the petitioner did not plead or contend that any such circumstance applied to Respondent No.3. The court held that absent proved disqualification, the elected member could not be unseated. (Paras 11, 12) C) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Availability Only Upon Established Disqualification - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy requiring clear disqualification; it cannot be used to challenge electoral roll irregularities or alleged fraud absent statutory disqualification. The court held that the writ could not issue because no disqualification under the Panchayat Act was made out. (Paras 12, 15) D) Election Law - Fraud and Suppression - Failure to Object to Electoral Roll Inclusion - Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 17 - Petitioner alleged fraud and relied on Section 17 prohibiting dual enrolment, but he never objected during revision or limitation. The court held that the petitioner's unawareness was insufficient and no fraud was shown; the Block Level Officer reported genuine residence shift. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued to remove Respondent No.3 as a Panchayat member on the ground that his name appeared in electoral rolls of two Legislative Assembly constituencies, and whether such dual enrolment amounts to disqualification under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The High Court held that Respondent No.3 was not disqualified under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as his name was enrolled in the Mandrem Legislative Assembly electoral roll and no disqualification under Section 10 was pleaded. The Court also found no fraud or suppression; the petitioner's failure to object to inclusion during limitation barred the challenge. Accordingly, no writ of quo warranto was issued.
Law Points
- For Panchayat elections
- electoral roll of Legislative Assembly is deemed list of voters under Section 13 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- A person whose name is in that list is qualified under Section 9 unless disqualified under Section 10
- Dual enrolment or electoral roll irregularity does not constitute disqualification
- Writ of quo warranto cannot issue absent established disqualification
- Failure to object to electoral roll inclusion during limitation bars subsequent challenge
