Elections to remain in abeyance until District Court verdict
The disqualified panchas, Mubina Faniband, Samuilla Faniband, Mustafa Dodamai, and Zubeda Agasar.
MARGAO
In a significant interim order, the High Court has ruled that the four disqualified members of the Rumdamol-Davorlim Panchayat may attend Panchayat meetings and sign the register, but are barred from participating in any proceedings, deliberations, or voting during the meetings.
The order, passed by Justice Valmiki Menezes, comes in response to a writ petition filed by petitioner Mukesh Naik challenging the South Goa District Court’s stay on the disqualification of the four members—Mubina Faniband, Samuilla Faniband, Mustafa Dodamai, and Zubeda Agasar—by the Salcete BDO-II, Adarsh Desai.
The High Court modified the earlier order dated August 2 passed by the South Goa District Court, further noting that it would be “desirable” for the Director of Panchayats to keep the elections for the posts of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch in abeyance until the District Court decides on the Revision Application filed by the four members against their disqualification.
Taking into account the urgency of the matter, the High Court also requested the South Goa District Court to advance the hearing of the Revision Petition, currently scheduled for August 16, and begin proceedings preferably from August 12.
“The functioning of the Panchayat may be impaired due to the operation of the stay order dated August 2, as modified by Thursday’s order,” the Court noted, urging the District Court to dispose of the petition preferably by August 22, “being uninfluenced by the prima facie findings, which are solely for the consideration of grant of stay of the order of the BDO.”
Justice Menezes addressed concerns raised by the counsel for the four members regarding the possibility of elections being notified for the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch posts. The counsel had argued that if the members are barred from participating, they would be unable to nominate themselves or vote in such elections.
Responding to this, Justice Menezes observed: “This may be the apprehension of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, but the fact remains that as of date, there is an order of disqualification operating against them, which in normal course would disqualify these Respondents from the post of member of the Panchayat.
“To eclipse this position, by granting a blanket stay of the disqualification after the prima facie conclusions referred to by me would amount to granting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 the full right to act in every manner that a sitting member of the Panchayat is conferred with. Considering the vast number of judgments, both of the Supreme Court and this Court, which have dealt with similar situations, there is no case made out for continuation of a blanket order of stay; this situation calls for striking a balance, in maintaining the status quo, insofar as the membership of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is concerned, and restricting their participation in meetings of the Panchayat, whilst continuing to represent their respective Wards.”
The Judge concluded that given the Advocate General’s statement confirming that the elections are currently on hold, the Director of Panchayats should continue to keep them in abeyance until the District Court passes final orders on the pending Revision Application.
Judge cites prima facie evidence of conflict of interest
MARGAO: High Court judge Valmiki Menezes justified the decision to restrict the participation of four disqualified Rumdamol-Davorlim Panchayat members, citing their prima facie involvement in a controversial Panchayat meeting concerning illegal constructions by their relatives.
“It was necessary to put curbs on the participation of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in further meetings of the Panchayat, as there was already a disqualification incurred by them,” Justice Menezes stated in his order.
The Judge referred to material presented before the Block Development Officer (BDO), highlighting that the four members—Mubina Faniband, Samuilla Faniband, Mustafa Dodamai, and Zubeda Agasar—had taken part in a Panchayat meeting on January 18, 2024. That meeting discussed a complaint regarding alleged illegal constructions by individuals directly related to the four members.
“On the facts of this case, and the prima facie conclusions which are evident from the pleadings before the BDO, this is a case that required restrictions to be imposed on the participation of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi (supra) and other judgments referred to by me above,” the Judge said.
