Daijiworld Media Network - Panaji

Panaji, Aug 28: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has disposed of a writ petition filed by Anthea Lynn Pereira, the Sarpanch of Majorda-Utorda-Calata, after the State government assured that no punitive action would be taken against her without adhering to the due process laid down in the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta noted the assurance from Additional Government Advocate Sulekha Kamat, who clarified that the Panchayat Department had merely ordered an inquiry based on an inspection-related complaint — not immediate disciplinary action.

“The order dated July 30 only initiates an inquiry following the inspection report. If any adverse findings emerge, the authorities will act strictly in accordance with law, particularly under Section 50 of the Act,” Kamat told the court.

Pereira had approached the court citing apprehensions that disciplinary action might be taken against her the moment the inquiry report is submitted, bypassing the mandatory opportunity for her to present her case. She stressed that such a move would violate Section 50(4) of the Act, which requires that any Sarpanch facing allegations of power misuse must first be given a chance to be heard.

The inquiry was ordered by the Directorate of Panchayats after a complaint from the Managing Director of KHR Hospitality India Ltd, who alleged that the Panchayat carried out a site inspection without the involvement of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), thereby violating established protocol.

The complainant alleged that the inspection was conducted in bad faith and aimed at harassment, accusing the Panchayat of bypassing the GCZMA, which holds jurisdiction over such matters in coastal areas.

Taking note of the gravity of the complaint, the High Court had earlier directed the Additional Director of Panchayats (South) to conduct a detailed inquiry and submit a report within 15 days.

While disposing of the petition, the court clarified that it was not passing judgment on the merits of the case and that all arguments raised by both parties remain open for consideration.

This development provides temporary relief to the Sarpanch but keeps the door open for future action, depending on the outcome of the ongoing inquiry.