Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Mansoor Mulla, a citizen and voter from Ward No. 9 of Curti, Ponda, Goa, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the seat of respondent No. 2, Mr. Mulla Hussain Muzawar, as a member (panch) of the Village Panchayat of Curti-Khandepar had become vacant. The petitioner also sought a writ of quo warranto and a writ of mandamus to revoke a construction license issued to respondent No. 2. The ground for the petition was that respondent No. 2 had more than two children, thereby being disqualified under Section 10(1)(c) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 had three children, as evidenced by school records and other documents. The respondents contested the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of proof and that the documents relied upon were not conclusive. The Court examined the evidence, including school leaving certificates and birth certificates, and found that the documents did not clearly establish that respondent No. 2 had more than two children. The Court noted that the burden of proof lay on the petitioner, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. Additionally, the Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 12(3) of the Act to approach the Government for a declaration of vacancy, and the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had not made out a case for the reliefs sought.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Raj - Disqualification of Member - Section 10(1)(c) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner sought a declaration that the seat of respondent No. 2 as panch had become vacant on the ground that he had more than two children, thereby being disqualified under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. The Court held that the burden of proving disqualification lies on the person who alleges it, and the petitioner failed to discharge that burden as the evidence produced was insufficient to establish that respondent No. 2 had more than two children. (Paras 4-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that a writ of quo warranto lies only when the person holding office is not entitled to hold it. Since the petitioner failed to prove the disqualification, the writ was not maintainable. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 12(3) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to approach the Government for a declaration of vacancy, and the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No. 2 is disqualified from being a member of the Village Panchayat under Section 10(1)(c) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for having more than two children, and whether a writ of quo warranto lies against him.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on the person alleging disqualification
- Section 10(1)(c) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Disqualification for having more than two children
- Writ of quo warranto
- Maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy available
