Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Shambu Volvoikar, the Sarpanch of Se-Old Goa Village Panchayat, filed a writ petition seeking disqualification of respondent No.3, Xavier Fialho, an elected member of the Panchayat, under Section 10(1)(j) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 had pecuniary interest in two resolutions passed by the Panchayat: one granting permission to his licensee to open an ice-cream parlour in shop No.137/2 owned by respondent No.3, and another issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to HDFC Bank Ltd. for opening a branch in the same premises. Respondent No.3 contended that he had no pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the resolutions, as the permissions were sought by third parties (the licensee and the bank) and he merely owned the premises. The court examined the leave and licence agreement dated 1st June 2012 between respondent No.3 and his licensee Shobhnath, which showed that the licensee was to pay Rs.25,000 per month and other charges, and had the right to terminate the licence. The court noted that the resolutions did not confer any direct financial benefit on respondent No.3; they only granted permissions to the licensee and the bank. The court held that mere ownership of premises does not constitute pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the resolutions, as the interest must be direct and not remote. The petitioner failed to prove that respondent No.3 had any direct financial stake in the resolutions. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that respondent No.3 had not incurred any disqualification.
Headnote
A) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Disqualification of Members - Pecuniary Interest - Section 10(1)(j) - The petitioner sought disqualification of respondent No.3 on ground of pecuniary interest in resolutions granting permission to his licensee for ice-cream parlour and NOC to HDFC Bank. Court held that mere ownership of premises does not amount to pecuniary interest in the subject matter of resolutions, as the resolutions did not confer any direct financial benefit on respondent No.3. (Paras 1-10) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Pecuniary Interest - Section 10(1)(j) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The court interpreted 'pecuniary interest' to mean a direct financial interest in the subject matter of the resolution, not a remote or indirect interest. The resolutions pertained to permissions for third parties (licensee and bank), and respondent No.3's interest as owner was too remote to attract disqualification. (Paras 8-10) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Disqualification - The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the member had a direct pecuniary interest. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that respondent No.3 derived any financial benefit from the resolutions themselves. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No.3 incurred disqualification under Section 10(1)(j) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by having pecuniary interest in resolutions passed by the Village Panchayat regarding grant of permission to his licensee for an ice-cream parlour and issuance of NOC to HDFC Bank Ltd. for opening a branch in his premises.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that respondent No.3 did not incur any disqualification under Section 10(1)(j) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as he had no pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the resolutions.
Law Points
- Pecuniary interest
- Disqualification of elected members
- Village Panchayat
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Section 10(1)(j)
- Resolution
- Ownership of premises
- Licence agreement
- No Objection Certificate
