Miguel Vas @ Vaz., v. Agnelo Lobo And 3 ORS.,

1 WP/992/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 992 OF 2017 Mr. Miguel Vas @ Vaz ... Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Agnelo Lobo & 3 Ors., ... Respondents Mr. Gajendra Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram: C. V. BHADANG, J.

Date : 22nd November 2017 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2.

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the third Respondent-Administrator, thereby rejecting application dated 18.02.2016 filed by the Petitioner requesting not to give oath of loyalty to the Respondent no. 1.

3.

The order passed by the Administrator is confirmed by the learned Administrative Tribunal by Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2017 in Communidade Appeal no. 16 of 2016.

4.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 1 is being elected to the Communidade since the year 2001. It is contended that the Respondent no. 1 has committed certain

2 WP/992/2017 irregularities during his tenure as the Attorney of the Communidade. It is submitted that, therefore, the Administrator of Communidade ought to have allowed the application and ought to have refused to administer oath of loyalty to the Respondent no. 1.

5.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, I do not find that any case for interference is made out. Indisputably, the Respondent no. 1 is an elected Attorney of the Communidade for the term 2016-2019. Article 74, 77 and Article 125(14) of the Code of Communidade on which reliance is placed on behalf of the Petitioner read as under:- Article 74 "The attorney, who has been found to be harmful to the interest of the Communidade, shall be suspended by the administrator and dismissed by the GovernorGeneral, upon the report or proposal of the administrator and hearing of the interested party."

Article 77:

"The Communidade may, at any time, by holding a meeting following the formalities prescribed in this Code, dismiss the elected attorney effective or substitute, when his action is proved to prejudice the interests of the Communidade and elect another one in his place." Article 125(14):

"The administrator of Communidades has powers to take oath of office of the staff members under him, as well as of members of the managing committee and other agents

3 WP/992/2017 of the Communidades. He may however delegate these functions to the president of the committee, who had already taken the oath of office."

It can thus be seen that under Article 74, the Attorney who has been found to be harmful to the interest of the Communidade shall be suspended by the Administrator and dismissed by the Governor-General upon the report of the Administrator and hearing of the interested party. Article 77 pertains to a situation where the Communidade after holding a meeting can dismiss the elected Attorney when his action is proved to be prejudicial to the interest of the Communidade. Finally, Article 125(14) under which the application was purportedly filed by the Petitioner, says that the Administrator has powers to take oath of office of the staff members under him as well as the members of the Managing Committee and other agents of the Communidade. He may delegate this function to the President of the Communidade.

It is thus difficult to understand as to how the application under Article 125(14) was maintainable so as to require the Administrator to refuse to administer the oath of loyalty. The Petitioner has been unable to show that under Article 125(14), the Administrator of Communidade can refuse to administer oath of loyalty to an elected Attorney, against whom there are allegations of acting to the prejudice or against the interest of Communidade.

6.

I have carefully gone through the Order passed by the learned

4 WP/992/2017 Administrator of Communidade and the Administrative Tribunal and I do not find that they suffer from any infirmity so as to require interference. It is however made clear that this shall not preclude the Petitioner from availing any other remedy, if available in law, against the Attorney. With this, the Petition is dismissed. C. V. BHADANG, J msr.