28.2 C
Panjim
Tuesday, May 17, 2022

HC Adjourns to August 30th CCP nominated councillors case

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img

Latest On Hub Encounter

Latest on Passay

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice S.P. Deshmukh and Justice M.S Sonak today adjourned to August 30th hearing on the petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues challenging the appointment of Kabir Makhija and Kishor Sastry as nominated Councillors at the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP).

As directed by the Court the Government today filed an affidavit stating that the matter was examined and that the two were nominated based on the subjective satisfaction that they had special knowledge or experience in the field of municipal administration to which Adv. Aires Rodrigues will now file his rejoinder. .

Adv. Aires Rodrigues in his petition has submitted that the appointment of Kabir Makhija and Kishor Sastry as nominated Councillors was in total breach and violation of law and that the CCP while proposing to nominate them had falsely stated that they were experts in the field of Engineering and Urban Administration respectively.

Further submitting that the government had hurriedly made the appointment without proper application of mind, Adv. Rodrigues in his petition has pointed out that the bio-data submitted by Kabir Makhija and Kishor Sastry does not make any mention of them having any expertise in Engineering and Urban Administration while Kishor Sastry in his biodata had stated that his educational qualification is I.T.I in Electricals while Kabir Makhija stated that besides a diploma in Civil Engineering he is a Sportsman and did modeling at various events including the Lakme Fashion Week.

Adv. Rodrigues has also drawn the Court’s attention that Kishor Sastry had lost the CCP elections held in March this year while Kabir Makhija’s ward having been reserved for women was contested by his sister who was also defeated.

Adv. Rodrigues in his petition has also challenged the very validity of Section 9 (1) (b) of the CCP Act which makes a provision to nominate up to five Councillors having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, engineering, architecture, archaeology, heritage etc, while drawing the attention of the High Court that this provision was violative of Article 243R of the Constitution of India which enables a non-elected member to be given a representation in a Municipality only if he has special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration.

elthor-showroom-ad
triumph-high school-ad

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -spot_img
spot_img
- Advertisement -spot_img