Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Disqualification of Panchayat Member for Alleged Pecuniary Interest in Repair Permission Resolution. Court holds that mere participation in a resolution granting permission for repairs to a house owned by a family member does not constitute disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as the member had no direct pecuniary interest.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 53
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Prakash V. Gaude, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking a declaration that respondent No.2, Devanand Nanusker, a member of the Village Panchayat of Usgao-Ganjem, had incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that respondent No.2 had pecuniary interest in a resolution passed by the Panchayat on 30/11/2012 granting permission to repair House No.90/1, which was owned by his family. The petitioner argued that by participating in the meeting and voting on the resolution, respondent No.2 violated the disqualification provisions. Respondent No.2 filed a reply disputing the allegations, stating that he was not the owner of the house and that the permission was only for repairs, which did not confer any pecuniary benefit on him. He further argued that the petitioner failed to establish any disqualification under Section 55(4) of the Act. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of proving that respondent No.2 had a direct pecuniary interest in the resolution. The Court noted that the house was not owned by respondent No.2 and the resolution pertained only to repairs, which did not amount to a disqualifying interest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Panchayat Raj - Disqualification of Members - Pecuniary Interest - Section 12(1)(d) Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The petitioner sought a declaration that respondent No.2, a Panchayat member, stood disqualified for having pecuniary interest in a resolution granting permission to repair a house owned by his family member - The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that respondent No.2 had any direct pecuniary interest in the resolution, as the house was not owned by him and the permission was for repairs only - Held that the burden of proving disqualification lies on the petitioner and was not discharged (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent No.2 incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by participating in a resolution granting permission to repair a house owned by his family member, thereby having a pecuniary interest.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed.

Law Points

  • Disqualification of Panchayat members
  • Pecuniary interest
  • Section 12(1)(d) Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1994
  • Section 55(4) Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • Burden of proof on petitioner
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016:BHC-GOA:2280-DB

Writ Petition No. 662/2014

2016-09-07

F.M. REIS, NUTAN D. SARDESSAI

2016:BHC-GOA:2280-DB

Mr. D. Pangam for Petitioner, Mr. G. Teles for Respondent No.2

Shri Prakash V. Gaude

The Village Panchayat at Usgaon-Ganje through its Secretary, and Mr. Devanand Nanusker

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking declaration of disqualification of a Panchayat member.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that respondent No.2 has incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and ceases to be a member of the Village Panchayat.

Filing Reason

Allegation that respondent No.2 had pecuniary interest in a resolution granting permission to repair a house owned by his family.

Issues

Whether respondent No.2 incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by having pecuniary interest in a resolution passed by the Panchayat.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Respondent No.2 had pecuniary interest in the resolution granting permission to repair House No.90/1, which was owned by his family, and thus stands disqualified. Respondent No.2: He is not the owner of the house; the permission was only for repairs and does not confer any pecuniary interest; petitioner failed to establish disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proving disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 lies on the petitioner. Mere participation in a resolution granting permission for repairs to a house not owned by the member does not establish pecuniary interest.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner by the above petition, inter alia, prays for a declaration that the respondent No.2 has incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently, ceases to be a Member of the Village Panchayat of Usgao-Ganjem. It is further pointed out that the permission which has been granted is only for the purpose of repairs which, according to the respondent No.2, does not attract any pecuniary interest to the respondent No.2.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 662/2014 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The respondent No.2 filed a reply. The petition was heard and disposed of by oral judgment on 07/09/2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: 12(1)(d), 55(4)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Disqualification of Panchayat Member for Alleged Pecuniary Interest in Repair Permission Resolution. Court holds that mere participation in a resolution granting permission for repairs to a house owned by ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions of Retrenched Employees Against Private Polytechnic for Lack of Maintainability. Employees of Private Aided Institution Not 'Workmen' Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Remedy Lies Before Civil Court or La...