Bombay High Court
VIJAY PURASHOTTAM NAYAK AND 2 ORSversusSTATE OF GOA THR CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed because an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 12 read with Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is available before the Block Development Officer.
Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Purashottam Nayak and two others, sought a declaration that three respondents should be removed as members of the Cola village Panchayat, alleging they participated in a discussion and vote in violation of Section 55(4) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. They relied on clause d of sub‑section 1 of Section 12 of the same Act. The Court observed that the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 12 read with Section 55 before the Block Development Officer, which is the appropriate forum for such complaints. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and refrained from expressing any view on the merits. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to pursue relief before the BDO.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate remedy under Section 12 r/w Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is available.
- Whether the respondents can be declared ineligible to continue as Panch members based on alleged violation of Section 55(4).
Legislation cited
- Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — s. 12, 4, 55
Subjects
- Panchayat
- declaration
- removal of members
- alternative remedy
- Section 12
- Section 55
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2 WP 776 2026
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.776 OF 2026
VIJAY PURASHOTTAM NAYAK AND 2 ORS ... PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF GOA THR CHIEF SECRETARY
AND 6 ORS ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Sanman Keny, Advocate for the Petitioners.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 22nd September, 2026
P.C.:
1. The reliefs sought in this petition are for a declaration that the
Respondents No.5,6 and 7 are not entitled to continue as Panch
members of the village Panchayat of Cola since their status stands
affected on the grounds stated in the petition. The grounds stated
in the petition fall squarely under clause d of sub-section 1 of
Section 12 of the Panchayat Raj Act,1994, since the Petitioners
allege that the three members of the Panchayat participated in and
voted on a discussion in contravention of the provisions of
sub-section 4 of Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The
Petitioners therefore have an alternate remedy of filing proceedings
under Section 12 r/w Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act before
the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO), which is the
Page 1 of 2
22nd September, 2026
2 WP 776 2026
forum under that provision that can take a decision on the
complaint.
2. In view of the fact that the Petitioners have an alternate and
efficacious remedy in the Act, we refrain from entertaining this
petition and relegate the Petitioners to that effect under the Act.
We have not expressed any opinion on the issues raised in this
petition and leave it open to the Petitioners to raise these or any
other grounds invoking the provisions under Section 4 of the Act
before the BDO.
3. Petition stands dismissed on the aforementioned grounds.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Date: 23/09/2026 10:55:11
22nd September, 2026
Checking your session…