PANAJI: After making a prima facie observation that, “democratic process has been subverted” in the Siridao-Pale panchayat by the government authorities to enable the sarpanch to continue even after he lost majority, the high court of Bombay at Goa in an interim order directed that the sarpanch should cease to continue in his post.
“…and any attempt on the part of Respondent no. 2 (Jagdish Gauns) to act as sarpanch of this panchayat will have to be dealt with seriously by the director of panchayat or the additional director of panchayat,” the court held.
“… the deputy sarpanch ie Petitioner no. 4 will be entitled to exercise the powers to perform the duties of the sarpanch until a sarpanch is duly elected,” the court held.
The “extent to which the matters have gone, to enable” the sarpanch to cling to power are at least, prima facie, a “sad reflection of how democracy is subverted at the grass-root level of Panchayats,” Justice Mahesh Sonak stated.
The court found the incident “extremely disturbing” where the democratic process was subverted.
The panchayat comprises seven members and, on July 16, four of them constituting a majority applied under Section 51 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act for convening a special meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the sarpanch for misappropriation of funds, not taking members in confidence, abuse of powers and encouraging illegal construction.
At the meeting specially convened at the verandah of the panchayat office because the panchayat office was mysteriously locked on that day of the motion, the four expressed want of confidence against the sarpanch. The police present at the site declined to open the lock of the panchayat office.
“The additional director has then found fault with the motion because the minutes were recorded in a notebook and not in the minutes’ book. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the recording of minutes in a notebook having regard to the circumstances in which the same were recorded,” the court stated, adding that the petitioners even pleaded that the panchayat office was locked and the minute books and stamps inside the panchayat office.
“To insist that despite this the minutes should have been recorded in the official minutes’ book, is again an example of clear perversity,” the court added.
“The additional director should have ordered an immediate inquiry as to how the panchayat office was locked on the crucial date when the special meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was to be held and taken up the matter by himself with the higher authorities as to the role of the police in not allowing elected representatives to enter into the panchayat office and to hold a special meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence,” the court held.
Instead, the Additional Director proceeded to find fault with the non-record of minutes in the official minute book and thereby sought to restore him to the position of sarpanch, when it is apparent that the he has lost the support of the majority, the court stated.
The petitioners were represented by Adv Carlos Alvares Ferreira with Adv D D Zaveri and Adv Arjun Naik representing the other group.
