O Wednesday, the Supreme Court stayed the disqualification of Sarpanch and Ward member of the Anjuna Panchayat, Goa. While issuing notice to the State Government, the Court restored the position of the sitting Sarpanch and Ward Member.

The proceedings before the Block Development Officer (BDO), who was granted a 15-day period to make a decision regarding disqualification proceedings, were also temporarily halted or stayed.

In the said matter, the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing an SLP challenging orders of the Bombay High Court directed two panchayat members would stand deemed to be disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

A Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was concerned with illegal and unauthorized constructions at Anjuna Beach. The High Court directed the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority ("GCZMA") and the Secretary of Village Panchayat Anjuna-Caisua to conduct an inspection, revealing around 275 illegal structures at Anjuna Beach.

Subsequently, the village panchayat conducted meetings in which property owners were requested to provide documents related to these structures. Accusations of illegal construction were leveled against the individuals who filed the petition, and the High Court directed them to submit an initial affidavit disclosing their stakes or interests in these constructions.

Ultimately, the High Court determined that, based on the meeting minutes supplied by the Secretary of Village Panchayat Anjuna-Caisua, which indicated their participation in meetings with personal interests, the petitioners were considered disqualified under Section 12(1)(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni, counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court disqualified them without granting them an opportunity to give the respond, which violates the principles of natural justice.

Further, he submitted that a notice was served on August 22, 2023, at 5 p.m., and the disqualification order was issued the following day.

By giving referece of Ravi Yashwant Bhor v. District Collector, Raigad and Others (2012) 4 SCC 407 , Sr Adv Nadkarni held that “an elected member can be removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and holding the enquiry, meeting the requirement of the principle of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend oneself from being removed from the said post.”

The plea further questioned the decision of HC directing the BDO to give a final decision within 15 days. It stated “This is arbitrary having regard to the fact that since there are disputed questions of facts which would require a full fledged-hearing as well as leading of evidence, the period of 15 days would do not give the petitioners an opportunity to buttress its case”

The petitioners submitted that they were not present in the hearings as regards adjudication of Show Cause Notices issued with respect to properties of persons related to the petitioners.

The plea stated “High Court has misconstrued the meaning of “pecuniary interest” as arising in Section 12, in so far as the property of the uncle of the Petitioner No.1 is concerned. It is the personal property of his uncle which was purchased by the uncle of the Petitioner No. 1 in the year 2002 and the same would by no stretch be inherited by the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not stand to derive any benefit out of the said property and thus, the High Court has erred holding that Section 55(4) of the said Act is attracted.”

Case title: Laxmidas Ashok Chimulkar & Anr. vs State of Goa