Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (2) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant has any indirect share or monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat. 2. Whether the appellant has incurred disqualification as a Panch member under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Summary: Issue 1: Indirect Share or Monetary Interest in Husband's Contract The Supreme Court had to determine if the appellant had any indirect share or monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat of Raia. The appellant's husband won a bid for the collection of market fees, and the appellant was accused of having an indirect monetary interest in this contract. The Court referred to the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1860, specifically Articles 1098 and 1108, which govern the community of property between spouses in Goa. Under these provisions, each spouse is entitled to a one-half share of the other's income and property. Additionally, Section 5A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, supports this apportionment of income between spouses. The Court concluded that the appellant, by operation of law, had an indirect share and monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat, as the profits from the contract would be equally apportioned between them. Issue 2: Disqualification under Section 10(f) of the 1994 Act Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, disqualifies a person from being a member of the Panchayat if they have directly or indirectly any share or monetary interest in any contract with the Panchayat. The Court emphasized that the purpose of this provision is to prevent conflicts between private interests and public duties. The Court held that the appellant's participation in the profits of her husband's contract constituted an "indirect monetary interest" in the contract, thereby attracting disqualification under Section 10(f). The Court dismissed the appellant's contention that mere relationship as husband and wife does not create the type of interest contemplated by Section 10(f), distinguishing the present case from the precedent set in Gulam Yasin Khan v. Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant had incurred disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and dismissed the civil appeal with no order as to costs.
|