PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Friday disqualified Loutolim sarpanch Inacio Fernandes on ground of conflict of interest after it was found that he had rented two shops within the panchayat premises and thus violated the Panchayat Act.
The Act states that a member may be disqualified if “he has directly or indirectly any share or monetary interest in any work done by or to the Panchayat or any contract or employment with, under or by or on behalf of the panchayat.
Hearing a petition filed by Franky Monteiro, the High Court ordered that Fernandes vacate his office for having incurred disqualification.
Monteiro initially approached the Goa State Election Commission, then approached the District Court before filing a petition in the High Court to get Fernandes disqualified.
Monteiro placed before the Court two arguments -- that Fernandes was in arrears of rent concerning two shops, he had taken on lease from the Village Panchayat, thereby incurring disqualification under Section 10(d) of the said Act.
Secondly, Monteiro alleged that since Fernandes was a lessee of the two shops, there was a contract between him and the 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.
With regard to the first contention, the High Court heard that Fernandes was regularly paying rent in accordance with the lease agreement and that the dispute arose when the Village Panchayat unilaterally increased the rent. Fernandes argued, such unilateral increase of the rent by the Village Panchayat was wholly illegal and not supported by any provision of law.
“The material on record does indicate that [Fernandes] never disputed liability to pay the rent in terms of the lease agreements and that he indeed was paying the said amount, but he had disputed the unilateral increase of rent by the Village Panchayat. [Fernandes] is well within his rights to raise such a dispute and it could not be said that he had incurred disqualification for being in arrears of rent, because he had not deposited the increased rent as claimed by the Village Panchayat,” the High Court single judge bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled.
However, when it came to the second contention (conflict of interest) the High Court ruled that there was indeed a contract involving direct monetary interest between the sarpanch and panchayat and hence he earned disqualification.
