A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice S.P. Deshmukh and Justice M.S Sonak will on Monday 2nd August hear the petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues challenging the appointment of Kabir Makhija and Kishor Sastry as nominated Councillors of the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP).
Kabir Makhija and Kishor Sastry have both filed their replies defending their appointment while claiming to have the necessary special knowledge and experience in Municipal administration.
Kabir Makhija has gone a step further and refunded to the CCP the monthly honorarium of Rs 10,800 which was paid to him while contending that it would satisfy him if it remains in the coffers of the CCP for the betterment of Panaji and its residents.
Adv. Aires Rodrigues in his petition has stated 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 as Councillors had falsely stated that they were experts in the field of Engineering and Urban Administration respectively.
Adv. Rodrigues has also 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 has 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.
Stating that the provision for nominated Councillors was so that the CCP could get the proficient advice and guidance of experts and not to be misused to politically rehabilitate former Councillors, Adv. Rodrigues in his petition has drawn the attention of the High Court 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.
