Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Zarina Blanca Fernandes, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 3, Agnelo Pereira, a member of the V.P. of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva & Gandaulim Village Panchayat (respondent no. 2). The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 3 was disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 because he was a government contractor. The petitioner contended that respondent no. 3 had entered into contracts with the government for construction works, which constituted an office of profit, and thus he was disqualified from being a panchayat member. The respondents argued that the contracts were not subsisting and that respondent no. 3 was not a government contractor within the meaning of the Act. The court examined the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which disqualifies a person from being a member of a panchayat if he has any interest in a contract with the government. The court found that respondent no. 3 had indeed entered into contracts with the government for construction works, and these contracts were still subsisting. The court rejected the argument that the contracts were not subsisting, noting that the contracts had not been completed or terminated. The court held that respondent no. 3 was a government contractor and thus disqualified under Section 12(1)(d). Consequently, the court allowed the petition and issued a writ of quo warranto, directing respondent no. 3 to discontinue functioning as a member of the panchayat. The court also declared that the seat of respondent no. 3 as a member of the panchayat was vacant.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Office of Profit - Disqualification - The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 3, a member of the village panchayat, alleging he was disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for being a government contractor. The court examined whether respondent no. 3 held an office of profit and was disqualified. Held that respondent no. 3 was a government contractor and thus disqualified, and a writ of quo warranto was issued (Paras 1-10). B) Panchayat Raj - Disqualification - Government Contractor - Section 12(1)(d) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The court considered the definition of 'government contractor' under the Act and found that respondent no. 3 had contracts with the government, making him disqualified. The court rejected the argument that the contracts were not subsisting. Held that the disqualification applies as long as the contract exists (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no. 3 is disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for being a government contractor and whether a writ of quo warranto should be issued.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, issued a writ of quo warranto directing respondent no. 3 to discontinue functioning as a member of respondent no. 2 village panchayat, and declared that respondent no. 3 is disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and his seat as a member is vacant.
Law Points
- Writ of quo warranto
- Office of profit
- Disqualification of panchayat member
- Government contractor
- Section 12(1)(d) Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
