PANAJI: Pulling up the chief officer of the Sakhali Municipal Council for creating obstructions in the smooth functioning of the council, the high court of Bombay at Goa on Monday directed chief officers of all municipal councils to discharge their duties under Section 74 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, and to cooperate with chairpersons of municipal councils.
The court castigated him for treating councillors and the chairperson as subservient to him, ensuring files are routed only through him when he is hardly available in the council office and for not giving effect to resolutions passed in the council. The high court on Monday directed the chief officers of all municipal councils to discharge duties by cooperating with chairpersons.
The Sakhali Municipal Council is controlled by a non-BJP group. The municipality falls in the Sakhali constituency represented by chief minister Pramod Sawant.
The court suggested that the chief officer receive counselling on his powers and duties and on how to interact with the chairperson and other elected councillors.
“…the chief officer entertains an impression that he is supreme when it comes to the administration of the council, and the chairperson and other elected councillors are virtually subservient or subordinate to him. According to us, the secretary (urban development) must take serious note of the conduct of this chief officer and the affidavit and reply filed by him and consider counselling him about his powers and duties under the said act and how he should interact with the chairperson and other elected councillors of the council,” the division bench stated.
The court also directed the secretary to consider whether this chief officer should be shifted to some other council.
The petition filed by the Sakhali Municipal Council through its chairperson and seven of 13 councillors stated that they require a full-time chief officer. The petition stated the council is not supported by BJP in the state government, which creates hurdles and hindrances in the council’s day-to-day functioning through the chief officer and director of municipal administration. The council stated that the chief officer didn’t give effect to resolutions passed at the meeting held on May 7.
“The approach of the chief officer indeed appears to be that no files can move in the council without his approval and then he is hardly available to give such approvals at the council office. The order dated May 5, 2021, is indeed an instance of unauthorised obstruction by the chief officer to the smooth functioning of the council. The chief officer was not justified in virtually denying the chairperson, vice-chairperson, and councillors access to the files,” the court stated.
The chief officer in his defence stated that he is available in the council every Wednesday and Friday from 2pm to 6pm, has kept no files pending, is not concerned with any ruling faction or otherwise and that he is concerned only about the duties entrusted to him under the said act. He stated that the petitioners have “misconceived” the provisions of Section 74 of the said act.
The court also pulled him up for using “extremely strong language” in his affidavit that the chairperson and majority of councillors are in the habit of making false allegations against him in order to pressurise chief officers and to dominate them so as to succumb to their illegal demands.
