The governance and administration of villages in Goa are primarily regulated under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which establishes clear limitations on the powers and functions of Panchayats. These local self-government bodies must operate within the boundaries of the law, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Recent events surrounding the issuance of an arbitrary inspection notice by the Macasana Panchayat and a High Court ruling on the Sunburn EDM case have illuminated these legal boundaries, showcasing the importance of adhering to established statutory and judicial mandates.
The Goa Panchayat Raj Act: Scope and limitations:
The Goa Panchayat Raj Act explicitly delineates the jurisdiction and authority of Panchayats, requiring them to function as decentralised units within the governance structure. While they possess certain regulatory and developmental powers, these are not absolute. Sections such as 66 and 67 restrict the Panchayat’s role in granting permissions for building activities or construction, reserving technical approvals for statutory bodies like the Town and Country Planning Department. Overstepping such jurisdiction constitutes an ultra vires act, violating the legislative framework under which Panchayats operate.
Case illustration: The Macasana Panchayat and arbitrary inspection notice:
The actions of the Macasana Panchayat offer a pertinent example of procedural lapses and jurisdictional overreach. On 19th December 2024, the Panchayat issued an inspection notice for a property in Macasana scheduled for 23rd December 2024. This notice stemmed from a complaint received on 19th November 2024, coinciding with the date when the property owner had submitted an application for technical clearance to the Town and Country Planning Department.
A valid Technical Clearance Order had been issued on the same day, affirming compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. However, despite this statutory clearance, the Panchayat proceeded with its notice without furnishing a copy of the complaint or providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard. Such actions contravened the principles of natural justice, which mandate fairness and transparency in administrative decision-making processes. Moreover, by attempting to undermine a decision issued by a superior statutory body, the Panchayat ventured beyond its lawful jurisdiction.
Ratio decidendi: High Court of Bombay at Goa in the Sunburn EDM case
The recent High Court ruling in the Sunburn EDM case provides a judicial precedent that underscores the limitations on Panchayat powers. The key legal principles established by the High Court include:
Gram Sabha’s limited powers:
The High Court reaffirmed that while the Gram Sabha serves a consultative role, it cannot exercise executive powers, which remain vested in the elected Panchayat body (The Goan, 2024).
Decision-making jurisdiction:
The ruling clarified that binding administrative decisions, such as granting permissions for large-scale events, fall exclusively within the purview of the elected Panchayat body. Resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha, while indicative of local sentiment, cannot override statutory or procedural requirements.
Principles of natural justice:
The judgment highlighted that actions taken by Panchayats must align with procedural fairness, ensuring affected parties are heard and decisions are substantiated by lawful authority.
These principles, as laid down by the High Court, underline the necessity for Panchayats to operate strictly within the legislative framework and avoid arbitrary or extrajudicial actions.
Importance of adhering to the rule of law:
The rule of law forms the bedrock of governance at all levels, including local bodies such as Panchayats. The actions of the Macasana Panchayat, if left unchecked, set a dangerous precedent for governance by arbitrary authority. Upholding statutory provisions and principles of natural justice is not merely an administrative obligation but a constitutional imperative.
For instance, the failure of the Panchayat to provide a copy of the complaint and the absence of a hearing before issuing the inspection notice starkly contradict principles enshrined in administrative law. This procedural breach deprives the affected party of their right to a fair opportunity to contest the allegations, rendering the subsequent inspection notice void ab initio.
Lessons for panchayats:
● Respect for statutory authority: Panchayats must recognise and respect decisions made by competent statutory bodies, such as the Town and Country Planning Department, instead of attempting to undermine their jurisdiction.
● Adherence to procedural fairness: Compliance with natural justice principles—ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness—must guide every administrative decision.
● Role clarity: Panchayats should understand the distinction between the consultative and executive functions of the Gram Sabha and the elected Panchayat body, as outlined in the Goa Panchayat Raj Act and reaffirmed by the High Court.
● Legal training: Members of Panchayats and their administrative staff should undergo periodic training on statutory and procedural norms to prevent jurisdictional overreach and arbitrary decisions.
Conclusion:
The actions of the Macasana Panchayat exemplify the risks of deviating from the statutory framework established under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. The High Court’s observations in the Sunburn EDM case serve as a timely reminder of the necessity for Panchayats to act within their jurisdictional limits and uphold the principles of natural justice. By adhering to the rule of law and respecting the boundaries of their authority, Panchayats can foster trust, transparency, and accountability in local governance.
In an era where governance at the grassroots is critical for socio-economic development, Panchayats must embrace their responsibilities with diligence and fairness, ensuring that their actions reflect a commitment to justice and legality.
