A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice M.S. Jawalkar today began hearing arguments on the petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues challenging the appointment of Kabir Makhija and Kishore Sastry as nominated Councillors at the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP).
Adv. Aires Rodrigues today argued that the appointment of Kabir Makhija and Kishore Sastry as nominated Councillors was in total breach and violation of law and that the notification appointing them falsely states that they have special knowledge and experience in Municipal Administration.
Further submitting that the government had hurriedly made the appointment without proper application of mind, Adv. Rodrigues argued that the bio-data submitted by Kabir Makhija and Kishore Sastry themselves does not claim that they have special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration
Adv. Rodrigues pointed out to the Court that while Kishore Sastry in his biodata had stated that his educational qualification was I.T.I in Electricals besides a municipal councilor for one term, that Kabir Makhija had stated that besides a diploma in Civil Engineering he is a Sportsman and did modeling at various events including the Lakme Fashion Week while also being a Councillor for one term.
Adv. Rodrigues also drew the Court’s attention 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 will continue his arguments on Wednesday 1st September after which the Court will hear the Advocate General and the Advocates representing the CCP and the two nominated Councillors.
Adv. Aires 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 having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration.