The Poinguinim village panchayat has over 6800 voters and is one of the biggest panchayat of the six panchayats in Canacona taluka.
In the last panchayat election held five years ago, the nine members elected to the panchayat are Vallabh R Tengse, Archana S Painginkar, Govind G Naik, Ramdas B Pujari, Domingos C Barreto, Prakash O Metri, Surekha K Prabhu Gaonkar, Maria J T Rebello and Jagdish B Tawadkar.
Subsequently, Govind G Naik was elected sarpanch and Domingo C Barretto as his deputy sarpanch. A year-and-half later, Domingo was ousted for his opposition to the industrial estate on Kulti plateau. He was supporting the locals who were opposing the acquisition of eco-sensitive Kulti plateau, and paid the price for “not towing” the line of the sarpanch.
Later, Archana Sunil Painginkar was elected as the deputy sarpanch and continues till date. In 2016, Sarpanch Govind G Naik made way for Vallabh to take over the hot seat as per the seat-sharing agreement.
When Herald came across the audit report of the panchayat for 2015-16 it was revealed that the auditor had mentioned that the panchayat’s financial position as not satisfactory. The budgeted income and the actual income and expenditure made during the year had huge variations. It was also revealed that the budget prepared was “fictitious and unrealistic”.
Another revelation in the report was that cash bank entry receipts and payments had not been attested by the secretary Sushant Lolyekar. House tax collected was146497.40, and balance was Rs 1,56,749.50. The professional tax collection was Rs 1,06283 while balance was Rs 48,446. Various taxes collected were only 54%. The auditor advised the panchayat to strive hard to collect various taxes by issuing demand notices to defaulters for recovering outstanding dues.
The panchayat has leased out 2 shops, one shop is regular in rent payment while the other leased out to Mahiti Ghar has not paid the rent for last 5 years. The panchayat advocate had served a final notice to the Director of Information and Technology on October 2, 2015 to recover the outstanding amount of Rs 78,475. The market auction was awarded to Samiksha Painginkar as her bid of Rs 6,200 was highest, the bidder has paid the bid amount but it is leartn that no agreement has been executed between the bidder and the panchayat.
The auditor remarked that the secretary has not furnished surety bond.
The panchayat has not taken any action against the secretary for non-execution of surety bond.
The panchayat failed to prepare the development plan in the prescribed format. The panchayat committees include the vigilance and development committees. The Supervisory and standing committees are yet to be constituted.
The BDO has conducted two inspections against the three which are mandatory, while the panchayat extension officer has conducted two inspections as against mandatory 5. The panchayat has conducted four gram sabhas and four special gram sabhas in 2015-16. Normally, the quorum has not been established for the gram sabhas.
The panchayat has issued 9 construction licenses and collected Rs 1,12,668 as licence fees for 2015-16. There are in all 5 illegal constructions as on March 31, 2016. The panchayat did not execute any work in 2015-16.
It is also revealed that the panchayat has not maintained the pay bill register in prescribed format nor has it maintained a court case register.
However, as per the information furnished by secretary, 5 cases are pending with the panchayat.
Kishore Paingankar, a senior citizen, who attends all gram sabhas alleged that the so called development of the panchayat is not for the people but for the panchas. It looks like the secretary is ruling the panchayat and the development are not as per the people’s wishes, he charged.
On condition of anonymity, another villager alleged that the panchayat secretary is harassing the villagers. Those who are interested in development are targeted, and those who are pointing out to the illegalities in the panchayat area have to bear the brunt.
