UDAY B. VAIGANKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gosavi for the Petitioner, Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 3, Mr. Ganesh Naik, for Respondent No.2 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe for Respondent No.4.

(2.) The Petitioner, who is a registered voter from Ward No.II of Arambol Village seeks, inter alia, a declaration that Respondent No.4 stands disqualified as the Member (Panch) of the Village Panchayat of Arambol and the seat held by her is deemed to have become vacant. Based upon such declaration, the Petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto, coupled with a direction to Respondent No.4 to vacate the seat of the Member (Panch) of the Village Panchayat of Arambol.

(3.) The Petitioner invokes the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act) which provides that if a member of a Panchayat votes or takes part in discussion in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 55, his seat shall be deemed to be or to have become, as the case may be, vacant.