[Goa Municipalities Act] Power To Remove Councillor Exclusively With Govt, Cannot Be Delegated To Director Of Municipality: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the power to remove a Municipal Councillor under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, vests exclusively in the Government and cannot be exercised by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Court observed that the power under Section 44 is quasi-judicial in nature, as it entails adjudication of allegations of misconduct or disgraceful conduct and may result in removal from office and disqualification for five years.

Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition filed by Jervis Fernandes challenging an order of the Director of Municipal Administration (DMA), Goa, rejecting his complaint seeking the removal of Respondent No.1, a Councillor of the Sanguem Municipal Council. The DMA had dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Section 44, holding that such powers were vested in the Government.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that by virtue of a Government notification dated 29 August 1996, the Director of Municipal Administration, acting as an Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government, was empowered to exercise powers under Section 44. It was further argued that even if the DMA lacked jurisdiction, the complaint ought to have been forwarded to the Government for appropriate action.

The Court examined the scheme of the Goa Municipalities Act and observed that while the Act specifically defines the powers and functions of the Director, it does not confer any power upon the Government to delegate powers vested in it under the Act. The Court further observed that the notification relied upon by the petitioner merely appointed various officers as Ex-Officio Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Additional Secretaries for carrying out secretarial functions. It did not amount to a delegation of statutory powers under the Act.

The Court observed that Section 44 empowers the Government to remove a Councillor for misconduct or disgraceful conduct after providing an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that powers of such nature are judicial or quasi-judicial and therefore cannot ordinarily be delegated unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication permits such delegation.

Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts on the principle that judicial and quasi-judicial powers cannot ordinarily be delegated, the Court observed that the Municipalities Act neither contains any provision authorising the delegation of powers under Section 44 nor confers such powers upon the Director of Municipal Administration.

“… there can be no manner of interpreting that the powers under Section 44 of the Municipalities Act, can be or have been delegated to the DMA… The DMA has therefore rightly rejected the complaint as being not maintainable before him,” the Court observed.

The Court further rejected the contention that the DMA was required to forward the complaint to the Government.

Holding that the Director of Municipal Administration had rightly concluded that he lacked jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Jervis Fernandes v. Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes [Writ Petition No. 631 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295

Click Here To Read/Download Order