MARGAO
In an interesting development, the State Election Commission has disqualified Loutolim Sarpanch Inacinho Fernandes from the membership of the village panchayat on grounds that he was having arrears due to the local body for the lease rent to be paid for a shop in the new panchayat building and it was well within his knowledge prior to contesting the election.
When contacted, the sarpanch pointed out that he will be consulting his legal counsel to decide on his future course of action. Inacinho said he had been paying the rent of the two shops in the panchayat building as per the agreement, adding that the dispute over the rent arose only after the panchayat enforced a revised rent. The order passed by State Election Commissioner R K Srivastava comes following a petition filed by Franky Monteiro for his disqualification under section 10 of the Goa Panchayati Raj Act. The SEC said that Inacinho’s contention that there is a subsisting dispute between him and the panchayat regarding the quantum of rent payable by him to the latter cannot be sustained in view of the fact that he has not raised any dispute or challenged the increase in rent at any legal forum.
“Simply by saying that unless the Estate Officer determines that Inacinho is in arrears of rent by holding an inquiry, it cannot be construed that he is in arrears of rent. One must not ignore the fact that it is the village panchayat which has filed eviction proceedings against the defaulters and not the other way round,” the order stated.
Referring to Inacinho’s letter dated May 22, 2017, the SEC said the letter shows that he had agreed to pay the rent as per the PWD assessed rates under protest, but he has not brought any evidence on record whether such arrears were paid by him and dues were cleared. “It is also not clear as to whether any no dues certificate was issued to him by the panchayat as demanded by him in May 2017.
“Section 158 of the Act is very clear about the term of any lease. The Respondent (Inacinho) had signed the lease agreement in 2009 and legally speaking no one can be expected to enjoy the benefits of the lease for an indefinite period simply because there is no such provision in the lease agreement,” the SEC added.
