Panchayats director erred in panch’s removal: Court

  • | Wednesday | 28th June, 2017

The court also noted that the application for his removal was wrongly filed quoting wrong provision of law. Therefore, the application could not have been filed for removal of Naik for not performing his duties as sarpanch.The complaint regarding illegal construction was filed on January 4, 2016. He also pointed out that Naik was also not duly notified regarding proceedings by the director. Naik was also not eligible for re-election for five years after he was disqualified by the director for 'persistent remiss in discharge of his duties'. The court set aside the order of the panchyat director dated Novmber 17, 2016, and termed it as "arbitrary" and "perverse".Former director Gurudas P Pilankar had allowed an application filed by Shaileshkumar Virnodkar and removed Naik as a member of the village panchayat.

Panaji: The North Goa district sessions judge has held that then director of panchayats misinterpreted and misread the provisions of law and removed Prakash Naik as member of Merces village panchayat last year for his failure to act against an illegal construction when he was sarpanch.The court found no evidence to prove that the construction was illegal. The court also noted that the application for his removal was wrongly filed quoting wrong provision of law. The court set aside the order of the panchyat director dated Novmber 17, 2016, and termed it as "arbitrary" and "perverse".Former director Gurudas P Pilankar had allowed an application filed by Shaileshkumar Virnodkar and removed Naik as a member of the village panchayat. Naik was also not eligible for re-election for five years after he was disqualified by the director for 'persistent remiss in discharge of his duties'. Naik had challenged Pilankar's order before the court.Virnodkar pointed out that the complaint of illegal construction was filed on January 4, 2016, and the sarpanch failed to take prompt action against illegal construction carried out by Ashok Parvatkar. Complaiant approached the authorities under section 210-A of Goa Panchayat Raj Act,1994."The allegations against the aggrieved party (Naik) are that he did not take prompt action as against the construction carried out by Ashok Parvatkar. There is nothing to show as to whether the said construction carried out by Ashok Parvatkar was illegal," Irshad Agha, principal district judge, observed. It cannot be said that the sarpanch acted malafidely.While holding that the director has committed jurisdictional error on facts as well as on law, the court said that Naik was not the sarpanch from February 6, 2016. Therefore, the application could not have been filed for removal of Naik for not performing his duties as sarpanch.The complaint regarding illegal construction was filed on January 4, 2016. On January 23, site inspection was scheduled, however, Naik postponed the inspection to October 28, 2016.During the case hearing, Naik's lawyer A D Bhobe argued that the application under Section 210-A of Goa Panchayat Raj Act was not at all maintainable as the aggrieved party was not holding the post of sarpanch at the relevant time. He also pointed out that Naik was also not duly notified regarding proceedings by the director.

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Latest Goa headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles