JAGDISH BHOBE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19th April, 2010, notice for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage was issued. Rule. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3 waives service. Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent waives service. Learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent also waives service.

(2.) The petitioner is an elected Member of the Village Panchayat of St. Andre (Goa Velha), which is the second respondent herein. The fourth respondent is an elected Member of the said Village Panchayat from Ward No. 8. The contention raised in this petition, in short, is that the fourth respondent has incurred disqualification under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1994") and the seat of the fourth respondent, as a Member of the second respondent Village Panchayat, is deemed to have become vacant. The fourth respondent has been elected as a Sarpanch of the second respondent on 18th August, 2009. A meeting of the second respondent Village Panchayat was held on 14th August, 2009. In the said meeting, the fourth respondent was present as a Member of the Village Panchayat. A resolution was passed in the said meeting for transferring the house tax of house bearing No.454/2 known as Mascarenhas Waddo in Goa Velha, from the name of the fourth respondent to the name of Mrs. Felicidade Agnelo Gonsalves. The said Mrs. Felicidade Gonsalves happens to be the mother of the fourth respondent. It is stated in the petition that the fourth respondent participated in the said meeting when the said resolution was passed.

(3.) One Mr. Amar De Silva made a complaint dated 28th October, 2009 to the Block Development Officer of Tiswadi, alleging that the fourth respondent, who was Sarpanch of the second respondent Village Panchayat, was constructing a new house in the plot bearing survey No.145/7 known as "Mourecho Bhat" of revenue Village Goa Velha, without obtaining conversion sanad and necessary permissions from the concerned authorities. It is stated that the plot surveyed under Survey No.145/7 was registered in the name of father of the fourth respondent as per mutation No.529. A copy of Form I & XIV showing the name of the father of the fourth respondent has been On 28th October, 2009, the Block annexed to the petition. Development Officer, Tiswadi issued a notice cum order under Section 66 the said Act of 1994, based on the complaint of Mr. Amar De Silva. By the said notice cum order, the Block Development Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 66(6) of the said Act of 1994, directed the fourth respondent and/or his father or any person claiming under them, to immediately stop the construction of a new house in the land surveyed under Survey No.145/7. It was stated in the notice that on receipt of the show cause notice, the fourth respondent and his father should produce attested copies of the construction licence with plan, within a period of 7 days, failing which the said construction shall be deemed to be an illegal construction and necessary report shall be submitted to the Deputy Director of Panchayats. It must be noted here that the fourth respondent and his father preferred an appeal against the said notice cum order, being Panchayat Appeal No. 198/2009. The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the said appeal was not entertained. By the said communication dated 28th October, 2009, the Secretary of the second respondent Village Panchayat was directed to verify whether any construction licence is issued for construction of a new house. The Secretary was directed to place the matter before the second respondent Panchayat in its fortnightly meting for passing necessary resolution for immediate action under sub-sections (3) and (4) of the said Act of 1994. on 18th