Kishor Sastry has submitted his reply to the petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues challenging his and Kabir Makhija’s appointment as nominated Councillors of the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP).
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice S.P. Deshmukh and Justice M.S Sonak will now hear the petition on Monday 2nd August.
Kishor Sastry in his reply has stated that he was elected Corporator from Ward No 4 in 2016 and therefore has the required knowledge and experience in Municipal administration to be nominated as Councillor.
Stating that there is no provision of calling for applications of persons desirous to be nominated, Kishor Sastry in his reply has further stated that no procedure was violated by the State government in nominating him and Kabir Makhija as Councillors.
Kishor Sastry has in his reply also stated that he and Kabir Makhija have held posts of responsibility which can be construed as experience in Municipal administration which makes them eligible to be nominated Councillors on account of their field experience.
Kabir Makhija has earlier filed his reply justifying his appointment while also stating that he had refunded to the CCP the monthly honorarium of Rs 10,800 which was paid to him and contending that it would satisfy him if it remains in the coffers of the CCP for the betterment of Panaji and its residents.
While stating that he had neither requested nor clamored for the post of nominated Councillor, Kabir Makhija in his reply further stated that his father late Prem Makhija was a civil contractor who undertook civil works of commercial cum residential nature and that between 1999 and 2001 that he assisted his father and gained practical experience in civil engineering.
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 recent CCP elections held in March 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.