Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Goa upheld the removal of a Panchayat member under Section 210-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, confirming the concurrent findings of the Director of Panchayats and the District Judge. The Court held that the Petitioner, while being an elected member and former Sarpanch of Arambol, failed in his statutory duty by not acting against 187 illegal constructions in a No Development Zone (NDZ)—many of which were owned or co-owned by his family. The Court concluded that:
“The Petitioner was persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties and acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat.”
Facts
- The Petitioner was elected as a Panchayat Member from Girkar Ward and served as Sarpanch of the Arambol Village Panchayat.
- In a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 3/2023), the Court uncovered rampant illegal constructions—187 in total—in the NDZ.
- Among these, 33 structures belonged to the Petitioner and his immediate family members, including commercial guest houses and restaurants lacking licences and regulatory permissions from GCZMA, GSPCB, and the Panchayat.
- The Petitioner had also issued an NOC to his brother for a guesthouse, indicating personal involvement in unauthorised activities.
- The Director of Panchayats removed the Petitioner under Section 210-A and barred re-election for three years; this was confirmed by the Revisional Court.
Issues
- Whether the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 210-A gave the Petitioner adequate notice of allegations and opportunity to respond.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish persistent remiss, abuse of power, or acts detrimental to the Panchayat’s interest.
- Whether the penalty of removal and three-year disqualification was disproportionate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Petitioner contended that Section 210-A does not impose a legal duty on members to act against illegal constructions.
- The Show Cause Notice was vague and lacked material particulars, violating natural justice.
- He claimed the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and based on irrelevant material.
- The penalty was said to be disproportionate.
- It was argued that constructions were done by deceased relatives before he took office, and that he did not personally build or operate the structures.
- Case laws cited included:
- Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab
- Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad
- Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, among others.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Director of Panchayats argued that the Petitioner, by virtue of being a Ward Member and former Sarpanch, was well aware of the illegalities.
- The structures in question—including the Petitioner’s own hotel—had no licences, permissions, or occupancy certificates.
- The Petitioner misused his position to obstruct demolition activities, as evidenced by his letter misinterpreting a High Court order.
- His affidavit and his brother’s statements confirmed his knowledge and involvement.
- Cited precedents included:
- Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner
- Shri Agnelo Alexinho Lobo v. Director of Panchayats
Analysis of the Law
- Section 210-A allows removal for “persistent remiss in the discharge of duties” or if a member “acts detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat.”
- The Court held that the statute does not require an “inquiry” per se; a Show Cause Notice suffices if adequate opportunity is given.
- The Court emphasized that elected representatives cannot feign ignorance when illegal structures proliferate under their watch, especially those belonging to their own families.
Precedent Analysis
The Court distinguished the present facts from Tarlochan Dev Sharma and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir, emphasizing that those dealt with arbitrary removals without factual basis. Here, the evidence was overwhelming: 33 illegal structures belonged to the Petitioner’s family; he issued NOCs to his brother; and affidavits filed showed he knew of the violations.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that the Petitioner’s letter dated 30.10.2023 to delay demolition was a deliberate attempt to mislead authorities.
- His own admissions and family affidavits proved knowledge of illegalities.
- His hotel operated without any legal permissions.
- As the Court stated:
“The petitioner was complicit, either by direct action or by inaction, in enabling illegalities that affected the environment and regulatory integrity.”
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding:
- The removal order under Section 210-A.
- The three-year bar on re-election.
- The finding that the Petitioner persistently failed in his duty and misused his powers.
Implications
- The judgment reinforces strict accountability standards for Panchayat members, particularly concerning illegal constructions and environmental violations.
- It sets a precedent for treating inaction as complicity where public duties are involved.
- The ruling affirms that the absence of an express statutory duty does not absolve elected representatives from consequences of regulatory lapses within their jurisdiction.