MR. BERNARDO FERNANDES v. STATE OF GOA & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The Petitioner has challenged a Judgment dated

03.09.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Panaji dismissing Panchayat Revision Application No.32/2024; by the impugned Judgment of 03.09.2024, the District Court has confirmed an order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Director of Panchayats in Panchayat Case No. DP/COMP./21/2023 by which the Director of Panchayats (DOP) has exercised jurisdiction in terms of Section 210-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act (the Act) and removed the Petitioner as a member of the Village Panchayat of Arambol with immediate effect, and rendered him ineligible to be re-elected as a Panchayat Member for the next three years.

#2. The impugned orders are sought to be assailed, invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the following, amongst other grounds: a) That the Petitioner being a democratically elected public representative, cannot be easily removed from office, more so when, the grounds mentioned in Section 210-A of the Act, for removal of the Petitioner as a member, have not been made out. 9th May, 2025 WP 205-2025 b) The Show Cause Notice issued by the DOP was vague, devoid of material particulars which made out a case for removal under Section 210-A, thus vitiating the entire proceedings, they being contrary to the principles of natural justice. c) That Section 210-A does not confer a duty upon a Member of a Panchayat to take action against illegal construction within his ward; there is no individual responsibility or duty cast by the Act on a Member of the Panchayat to take action against illegal constructions. Hence, there being no jurisdiction in the DOP to act under Section 210- A against the Petitioner, the Authorities below have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders. d) Assuming the members of the family of the Petitioner had indulged in illegal constructions under the Panchayat jurisdiction, the DOP has no jurisdiction to relate such an act to be an act of the Member of the Panchayat qua his role as a Sarpanch. Since the Petitioner has resigned as a Sarpanch, he does not have any duty as a Member 9th May, 2025 WP 205-2025 nor is he vested with such powers that a Sarpanch could exercise to arrest illegal constructions. e) That the conclusions and findings of the DOP and of the Revisional Court are perverse and not borne from any legal evidence on record.

#3. The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in reply to the petition bringing on record various documents and orders in PIL (Suo Motu) WP No.3/2023 and WP No.724/2023, to contend that the Petitioner, his brothers, sister and other family members were all Respondents in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and have filed their affidavits therein; the DOP contends in the affidavit that the Show Cause Notice refers to the records of these petitions and the basic allegation against

the Petitioner, that, first as a Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Arambol and as a Panchayat Member of Girkar Ward, from which the Petitioner was an elected representative/member in the Panchayat, he was fully aware of all the illegal constructions in this Ward, including his own or of his family members; it is further alleged that in terms of Section 210-A of the Act, and based upon the record of these petitions and the orders passed by this Court therein, a Show Cause Notice was served under Section 210-A, calling upon the Petitioner as to why he should not be removed from office. 9th May, 2025 WP 205-2025

#4. The affidavit states that the Panchayat, by its affidavit and reports placed on the record of the aforementioned Writ Petitions, details of around 187 illegal constructions, all in the No Development Zone (NDZ) covered by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification under the Environment Protection Act; the record revealed that none of the structures had a construction licence or occupancy certificate under the Panchayat Raj Act.

#5. Apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Mr. Abhijit Gosavi for the Petitioner advanced the following submissions: a) That Section 210-A of the Act does not cast any obligation to report or prescribe the consequence of an omission to report an illegal construction within the jurisdiction of the member of a Panchayat, and hence, the order of removal of the Petitioner from the post of Member has been passed without any jurisdiction by the DOP. b) The Show Cause Notice is vague, containing no foundational facts or allegations, the findings of the DOP are perverse and not based on record, and the imposition of a three-year restriction from 9th May, 2025 WP 205-2025 being re-elected is disproportionate and excessive, in relation to the charges levelled against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned orders should be set aside and this case should be sent back to the DOP for issuing a fresh Show Cause Notice containing all the material particulars, complying with the principles of natural justice, and affording the Petitioners to file a proper reply to these allegations. c) Reliance was placed on the following case law in support of these submissions: i. Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001) 6 SCC 260. ii. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407. iii. Manish Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC iv. Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105. v. Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 12326 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279 of 2024). vi. Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of