Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Jervis Fernandes, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Director of Municipal Administration (DMA), Panaji, which dismissed his complaint against Respondent No.1, a Councillor of Ward No.1 of Sanguem Municipal Council. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 had fraudulently obtained a construction license, acted contrary to the license, and obtained a false caste certificate, amounting to misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.04.2023 to the DMA seeking removal of Respondent No.1 under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. The DMA, after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction under Section 44, as such powers are vested in the Government. The petitioner then filed the present petition seeking to set aside the DMA's order and for directions to the Director of Urban Development to decide the complaint under Section 44. The petitioner argued that the DMA had delegated powers via Gazette Notification No.26/1/88-GA & C dated 29.08.1996 and that the DMA acts as a delegate of the Government. The respondent argued that the DMA had no jurisdiction. The Court examined Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 and the Gazette Notification. The Court held that the power under Section 44 is vested in the Government, not the DMA, and the notification did not delegate such power to the DMA. The Court found that the DMA correctly held it had no jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the DMA was upheld.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Removal of Councillor - Jurisdiction of Director of Municipal Administration - Section 44 of Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 - The issue was whether the DMA has power under Section 44 to remove a Councillor for misconduct. The Court held that the power under Section 44 is vested in the Government, not the DMA, and the DMA correctly held he had no jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2, 4, 7-8) B) Delegation of Powers - Gazette Notification - Section 44 of Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 - The petitioner argued that the DMA had delegated powers via Gazette Notification No.26/1/88-GA & C dated 29.08.1996. The Court held that the notification did not delegate the power under Section 44 to the DMA. (Paras 5, 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Director of Municipal Administration (DMA) is vested with powers, delegated or otherwise, under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 to pass orders and exercise jurisdiction for removal of a Councillor from office for acts of misconduct or disgraceful conduct.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the DMA dated 29.09.2023 is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 44 of Goa Municipalities Act
- 1968
- Delegation of powers
- Jurisdiction of Director of Municipal Administration
- Removal of Councillor for misconduct
