MARGAO
The Supreme Court has stayed the order of the High Court disqualifying the former Sarpanch of Loutolim Inacio Fernandes from the membership of the Loutolim Panchayat body.
Inacio’s counsel contended before the Apex Court that the disqualification in terms of section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat raj Act, 1994 cannot be said to have been incurred by the petitioner as there was a subsisting lease agreement which commences from October 6, 1993 with an automatic renewal clause every 11 months. It was further submitted that if the interpretation given in the impugned judgement is accepted, then it would amount to the petitioner (Inacio0 giving up his rights as a lessee which is subsisting and not post his election.
The Court has called for filing counter affidavit within four weeks and while listing the matter after six weeks, has stayed the operation of the High Court order.
The Bombay High Court had on October 1 ordered the disqualification of Loutolim Panchayat member Inacio Fernandes under section 10 (f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
The writ petition for the disqualification of Inacio from the membership of the Loutolim Panchayat was filed by a resident of Loutolim Franky Monteiro, alleging that since the respondent No 1 (Inacio) was a lessee of the two shops, there was a contract between him and the respondent No 2-Village Panchayat, thereby showing that he had a direct monetary interest in such a contract, inviting disqualification under Section 10(f) of the said Act.
The High Court had observed that there cannot be any doubt about the fact that an elected member and Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat would be in a position to influence the steps to be taken by the Panchayat in a dispute with him in his personal capacity and such a conflict of interest and duty is the very mischief that is sought to be addressed by Section10(f) of the said Act. “The contention raised on behalf of the respondent No 1 (Inacio) by relying upon the principle of noscitur a sociis cannot be accepted, because it would amount to employing a very narrow construction of the said provision, which would go against the settled position of law in the context of the very provision that came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court”, the Court further observed.
