PANAJI
Gaude had, in his petition alleged that Nanoskar had, as a panch member, voted in the panchayat meeting, to grant permission to repair his own house.
In terms of Section 55(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, no member of a panchayat shall either vote or take part in any discussion in respect of any matter where he has pecuniary interest.
“[Nanoskar] himself disclosed that he was the owner of the subject-construction. The fact that the repairs of the building would enhance the value and utilisation of the structure and consequently, creates a pecuniary interest to him cannot be disputed,” the Bombay High Court at Goa said in its order.
“In such circumstances, as the fact that [Nanoskar] had taken part in the meeting held wherein the resolution to grant permission for repairs of the subject-construction was approved, has not been disputed, we find that the respondent No 2 would stand disqualified in terms of Section 12(1)(d), read with Section 55(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently, ceases to be a member of the concerned panchayat,” the High Court ruled.
However, the fact that he claimed to be the owner of the house in his application before the panchayat belied his claims.
In his defence, Nanoskar denied that he was the owner of the house in question and further that the permission which has been granted is only for the purpose of repairs which, according to him does not attract any
pecuniary interest.
