PANAJI
Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, who has been trying to hold on to power at the Sanquelim Municipal Council, where the chairperson Yeshwant Madkar, who he is backing is facing a no confidence motion, received another setback after the Bombay High Court at Goa directed that the meeting of the Council to decide the no confidence motion should be held no later than April 16.
A group of six councillors in the 13 member council who moved the no confidence motion approached the High Court alleging that the Director of Municipal Administration has been delaying in holding the meeting and finally after they filed the petition agreed to call the meeting but only on April 30 which is more than six weeks after they submitted the motion of no confidence.
“We direct (Director of Municipal Administration) to take all steps to see that the meeting for consideration of Motion of No Confidence against chairperson is positively held on 16.04.2021. If for this purpose the Director has to issue notices to the councillors, he should ensure that the same are issued at the earliest so that there are no complaints on this issue. The Deputy Collector who has been deputed to preside over this meeting should also ensure that such a meeting is held on 16.04.2021. The notice for holding the meeting on 30.04.2021 is consequently modified to that extent,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Jawalkar and M S Sonak ruled.
The councillors led by Dharmesh Saglani a former chairperson himself told the court that “there is no justification whatsoever for deferring such a meeting by over four weeks, when, in such matters, the position as to whether the Chairperson enjoys the confidence or not must be determined at the earliest.”
“For a long time, the petitioners have been made to wait or even institute proceedings, only to establish that the incumbent has lost the confidence of the majority. He submits that fixing such a long date by the Director is an unreasonable exercise of powers and even malafide,” the councillors told the court.
In response, the Advocate General, Devidas Pangam, told the court that there is absolutely nothing unreasonable in the exercise of powers by the Director. He justified the delaying on grounds that the elections to several municipal councils were required to be held by 30.04.2021 in terms of orders made by the Supreme Court and as a result the Director, fixed the meeting on 30.04.2021, so that, there would be sufficient time for the officials to oversee or preside over the meeting.
He also submitted that the fixing of the date is basically a matter of discretion which in this case, is certainly not exercised unreasonably and there will be no much difference if the meeting is held on 24.04.2021or some date before. He urged that in such matters the Courts should defer to the date that has been bonafide fixed by the Director.
Most importantly, however, the Advocate General told the court that holding a meeting to decide a no confidence motion “might have its political repercussions” since the code of conduct was in force.
However the High Court found no merit in his arguments.
“According to us, the political repercussions, in particular, cannot be the concern of the Director who is only expected to act following the law regardless of such repercussions. Even the Code of Conduct is not the reason stated by the Director. In any case, we fail to see as to how the Code of Conduct can even remotely affect the convening of such a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence,” the High Court said.
“The removal of an elected office bearer on the loss of confidence is an essential feature of democracy. Such a feature cannot be defeated by the Director by simply delaying the holding of a meeting to even consider such a motion,” the High Court said.
“Therefore, the Director, was required to display utmost urgency upon the receipt of the requisition of no less than six councillors out of 13 for holding a motion of no confidence. The Director was also required to take into consideration the circumstance that a vacancy had arisen on 21.11.2020 and the petitioners had even petitioned this Court for holding the bye-elections at the earliest. That does not mean that such holding can be delayed unreasonably or without any valid reasons.
The Director should have proceeded to convene the meeting for considering the Motion of No Confidence at the earliest. Fixing a date after almost four weeks or rather, six weeks from the date of receipt of the requisition can certainly not be regarded as some reasonable exercise or for that matter an exercise within reasonable bounds,” the Court ruled.
