South Goa District Court quashes disqualification of four Rumdamol Panchayat members

The four Rumdamol Panchayat members disqualified by the Salcete BDO.

MARGAO
The South Goa District Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Salcete Block Development Officer disqualifying the four Rumdamol Panchayat members.

The legal battle, however, seemed far from over. While setting aside the BDO order, Additional District and Sessions Judge Pooja Kavlekar remanded the matter back to the Salcete BDO to reconsider the written arguments and re-hear the parties if needed, and to pass a reasoned order as per the law.

Proceedings before the Salcete BDO will commence from September 1 as the Court’s order has directed both parties, complainant Mukesh Naik and the four Panchayat members Mubina Faniband, Samuilla Faniband, Mustaka Dodamni and Zubeda Agasar, to appear before the BDO on September 1.

Saying that she was inclined to quash the BDO order of disqualification on the ground that a quasi-judicial authority, though not trained in writing judgments, cannot be absolved from giving reasons based on which it has arrived at a finding, Judge Pooja Kavlekar said the BDO should consider the arguments afresh. She added that the BDO should not be influenced by any observation made in the Court order pertaining to the facts, and shall take a reasoned and independent decision.

Saying the BDO’s finding was not at all in consonance with what is required to be proved under Section 55(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, the Judge said the finding suggested that only because the applicants had participated in the meeting, the BDO concluded that they had pecuniary interest. “Mere participation and discussion in a meeting and failure to take action against cannot be an indicator of a pecuniary interest. Rather, there ought to have been a clear finding by the BDO that, despite having pecuniary interest in the question that came for consideration in the meeting, applicants not only participated but also discussed the question before it. This finding is not at all found anywhere in the order. The finding itself is not properly worded so as to come to the conclusion that the respondent is disqualified under Section 55(4) and Section 12 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act,” she said.

The Judge added: “In the instant case, however, I find that there is no reasoning given at all. Perusal of the written arguments and their comparison with the impugned order indicate that the impugned order is a verbatim replica of written arguments that have been filed by respondent no. 1. So much so that the conclusion drawn by the learned BDO is drawn exactly in the same words that have been pleaded in the written arguments filed by the parties. The grammatical mistakes have also been copied word for word,” the Judge observed.

The Judge added: “Disqualification of an elected member is a serious matter and the least that is expected in exercise of quasi-judicial powers is to give proper reasons for a punitive finding. In the instant case, I do not find any reasoning given by the BDO, which reasoning can be examined by this Court in revision.”