“…and any attempt on the part of the defendant No. 2 (Jagdish Gone) to act as the sarpanch of this panchayat has to be taken seriously by the director of the panchayat or the additional director of the panchayat,” the court said.
“…the Deputy Sarpanch i.e. Petitioner No. 4 shall be entitled to exercise the powers to perform the duties of the Sarpanch till the Sarpanch is duly elected,” the court said.
“The extent to which the cases have gone,” Justice Mahesh Sonak said, “to enable the sarpanch to cling to power, at least, prima facie, “is a measure of how democracy is distorted at the grassroots level of panchayats.” sad reflection”.
The court found the incident “extremely disturbing”, where the democratic process was overturned.
The panchayat consists of seven members and, on July 16, four of them constituting a majority, applied for convening a special meeting under section 51 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. Speed No-confidence motion against sarpanch for not taking members Self-confidence, abuse of powers and encouragement of illegal construction.
In a specially convened meeting in the verandah of the Panchayat Office On the day of the resolution, all four expressed distrust against the sarpanch as the panchayat office was mysteriously locked. The police present on the spot refused to open the lock of the panchayat office.
“The Additional Director has then found a mistake in the motion as the minutes were recorded in a notebook and not in the minute book. Nothing illegal in the recording of the minutes in a notebook with respect to the circumstances under which it was recorded or is not irregular,” the court said, adding that the petitioners also noted that the panchayat office was closed and the minute books and tickets inside the panchayat office.
“The insistence that the minutes notwithstanding this should have been recorded in the official minutes book is again an example of apparent distortion,” the court said.
“The Additional Director should have ordered an immediate inquiry into how the Panchayat office was closed on the crucial date, when a special meeting was held to consider the no-confidence motion and the matter was taken up with the higher authorities himself. . For the role of the police in not allowing the elected representatives to enter the panchayat office and holding a special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion,” the court said.
Instead, the Additional Director proceeded to find fault with the non-record of the minutes in the official minute book and thus sought to reinstate him to the post of Sarpanch, when it was clear that he had lost majority support, The court was called.
The petitioners were represented by Adviser Carlos Alvares Ferreira, while DD Zaveri was represented by Adviser and Arjun Naik, counsel for the other group.
.