FORMER COUNCILLOR CABRAL GETS BACK HIS VOTING RIGHT
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed a notification issued by the Director of Municipal Administration who had excluded houses belonging to former Corporator Nelson Cabral and his family from the limits of the Corporation of the City of Panaji and instead had them included in the Taleigao Village Panchayat.
The High Court ruled that the Director of Municipal Administration had no authority to change the notified limits of the Corporation of the City of Panaji, a power that was vested with the legislature.
“The exclusion of house Nos. 474, 474A,475, 475-B is set aside and the said houses to stand included in Ward No 1 of Corporation of the City of Panaji in the impugned notification dated 4th February 2021. Necessary steps to be taken in accordance with our directions forthwith so that the rights of the petitioners are not defeated in any manner. In particular, should any of the petitioners file their nominations within the prescribed period, then such nominations will not be refused only on the ground that the said houses in which they live had been excluded from the Corporation area vide the impugned notification,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharati Dangre ruled.
Cabral approached the High Court contesting the abrupt exclusion of their houses on the eve of the elections for which the polling is scheduled on 20th March 2021.
Cabral told the court that he not only lived within the areas which earlier constituted the Panaji Municipal Council but further he was elected as a councillor in the year 1995 and after the establishment of the Corporation in the year 2002 his wife was also elected as a corporator. Subsequently, he contested elections in 2006 and 2011 but lost. However, his brother contested the election and won in 2006 and 2011.
“From all this, it is quite clear that the said three houses which have now been abruptly excluded by the impugned notification, were always included within the Corporation area. Based on such inclusion, right from the year 2002 the petitioners have been contesting and even on occasions winning elections to the Corporation,” the High Court observed.
“The notification has been issued in the purported exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the said Act. Section 9(2) of the said Act, according to us does not empower the Director to alter the Corporation area or to exclude the houses which were already a part of the Corporation area. Section 9 (2) only empowers the Director, with the approval of the State Government, to specify for the City the number and boundaries of the wards into which the City shall be divided for the purpose of the ward election of councillors and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward,” the High Court said.
“Therefore, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 9(2), the Director had no authority to alter the area of the Corporation or to exclude the houses which were already part of theCorporation area. The Director has virtually purported to exercise the powers of Legislation and proceed to alter Schedule I to the said Act, when admittedly no such powers are vested in the Director under Section 9 (2) of the said Act,” the Court ruled.
