KANHOBA VISHNU RAUL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the Order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Panaji in Petition No.3/05 on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions comprised under Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter, referred to as the said Act) as also being contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India and another, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1892.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Election Commissioner erred in dismissing the application solely on the basis of the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shri Mafaldo Fernandes vs. Shri Kushali S. Kalekar and others, reported in 1996(2) Goa L.T. 46. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the provisions comprised under Section 11 of the said Act nowhere impose any restriction as regards the authority or an individual who can refer the matter to the Election Commission relating to the dispute pertaining to the disqualification of a member of Panchayat. He also submitted that in that regard the decision of the Division Bench was also misconstrued by the Authorities. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India and another (supra). The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 also fairly submitted that the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act are in pari materia with the provisions comprised under Auricle 192 (1) of the Constitution of India and the decision of the Apex Court in relation to the said Article would squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand.