Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, residents of Loutolim, challenged an order dated 19/9/2009 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II, Panaji-Goa, dismissing their application for intervention in Panchayat Appeal No.91 of 2009. The appeal had been filed by respondents 2 to 7 challenging a Gram Sabha resolution dated 5/4/2009. Under Section 6(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Director issued a public notice and displayed it on the notice board of the Panchayat. Pursuant to this notice, the petitioners filed their replies on 2/7/2009, which were taken on record. Subsequently, on 27/4/2009, they filed an intervention application, which was dismissed. The court noted that since the petitioners had already filed replies pursuant to the public notice and those replies were on record, it was not necessary to specifically allow the intervention application. Instead, the court directed respondent no.8 to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the appeal, holding that interest of justice would be served thereby. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Right to be Heard - Intervention in Appeal - Section 6(6) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Petitioners filed replies pursuant to public notice issued under Section 6(6) of the Act in Panchayat Appeal No.91 of 2009 - Their intervention application was dismissed by the Additional Director of Panchayats - Held that since the replies were already on record, interest of justice requires that petitioners be given an opportunity of being heard, without need to specifically allow the intervention application (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who had filed replies pursuant to public notice under Section 6(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, are entitled to be heard in the appeal even though their formal intervention application was dismissed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.8 to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in Panchayat Appeal No.91/2009. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Right to be heard
- Intervention in appeal
- Public notice under Section 6(6) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 141
Mr. R. Menezes for Petitioners, Mr. G. Teles for Respondent no.1, Mr. S. Noel Dias Sapeco for Respondent nos.2 to 7, Mr. V. Rodrigues for Respondent no.8
Mr. Joaquim Gracias and Mr. Franky Monteiro
The Village Panchayat of Loutolim, Mr. Jaiprakash Vaman N. Rasaikar, Mr. Joaquim Monteiro, Mr. Ramesh Gaude, Mr. Inacinho Fernadnes, Mr. Ramdas Gaude, Mr. Prashant M. Naik, The Additional Director of Panchayats-II
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging dismissal of intervention application in a Panchayat appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to be heard in Panchayat Appeal No.91 of 2009.
Filing Reason
The Additional Director of Panchayats dismissed the petitioners' application for intervention in the appeal.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Director of Panchayats dismissed the intervention application on 19/9/2009.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be heard in the appeal despite dismissal of their intervention application.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had filed replies pursuant to public notice under Section 6(6) and should be heard.
Respondents opposed the intervention application.
Ratio Decidendi
Where replies have been filed pursuant to public notice under Section 6(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and are on record, interest of justice requires that the petitioners be given an opportunity of being heard, without the need to specifically allow the intervention application.
Judgment Excerpts
I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served by giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard in Panchayat Appeal no.91/2009.
In my opinion, it is not necessary specifically to permit the application for intervention and interest of justice would be served by directing the respondent no.8 to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
Procedural History
Respondents 2 to 7 filed Panchayat Appeal No.91 of 2009 challenging Gram Sabha resolution dated 5/4/2009. The Director issued public notice under Section 6(6). Petitioners filed replies on 2/7/2009. On 27/4/2009, petitioners filed intervention application which was dismissed on 19/9/2009. Petitioners then filed this writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 6(6)
