PANJIM: The State government and Goa State Election Commission (GSEC) were left red-faced as the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday, quashed and set aside Director of Urban Development/Municipal Administration’s notification dated February 4 on reservation of seats for the municipal polls.
The division bench comprising Justice M S Sonak and Justice Bharati Dangre, while pronouncing its verdict on nine writ petitions challenging the reservations, directed Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA) to issue fresh notification for elections at Sanguem, Mormugao, Mapusa, Margao and Quepem municipalities within a period of 10 days, thereby ensuring inter alia, reservation for women of not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved for direct elections to the municipal councils.
GSEC has been asked to expeditiously notify the election programme, on the order for reservation of seats in the municipalities to enable culmination of the process on or before April 15, 2021.
The order will, however, not impact the elections to remaining six municipalities where voting will be held as per schedule on March 20.
When the order was being pronounced, Advocate General Devidas Pangam intervened pleading with the court for a stay of its judgment and order by one week so that the authorities can challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court. He further submitted to the division bench that the election programme was already declared on February 22, 2021 and it has advanced to the stage of filing of the nomination. But the bench rejected the AG’s plea, in what led to another setback for the government and the GSEC.
At least nine writ petitions were filed before the high court pursuant to the February 4 notification posing a challenge to the determination of the reservation of seats across different municipal wards. The order on Monday was pronounced following a fast track hearing into the petitions challenging the manner in which reservations and delimitation of wards were carried out.
The bench observed that DMA applied different yardsticks to different wards indicating gross illegalities and the constitutional and statutory infraction by the Director.
“The Director after having admitted that there was no policy based on which the reservation has been made or rotation policy implemented, appears to have regarded the absence of such policy as a license to make reservations based on his whims and caprices. Different yardsticks have been applied in respect of different Municipal Councils. There is no uniform policy even for the implementation of the rotation mandate in the same councils. The entire exercise of making reservations to no less than 11 councils was completed by the Director in a single day, that is, February 4, 2021 and even the impugned order was issued on the same date,” states the 94-page order released by the high court soon after pronouncing the order in open court.
“At least prima facie, even the amended provisions of Section 9(2)(bb) of the said Act in relation to 27 per cent reservations for OBCs appear to have been completely overlooked. The Noting that is a precursor for the issuance of the impugned order dated February 4, 2021 and was prepared on February 4, 2021 itself in a tearing hurry and soon thereafter Law Secretary, who is holding the post of SEC, issued the election schedule on February 22, 2021 even though, these petitions had already been instituted and were posted for final disposal on February 22, 2021. Based upon these artificially created events, the entire defence was to press forth the hands-off doctrine and overlook the gross illegalities and the constitutional and statutory infraction by the Director,” it said further.
The court, however, dismissed the petition for Curchorem-Cacora municipal council stating it is the only council where DMA followed the percentage of reservation for women by apportioning it to one-third of the total number of seats. In the case of OBC category also it has provided clear cut 27 per cent reservation.

