IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2010 MR. MARCUS MARIO PEREIRA ... Petitioner Versus MR. SALUS CARDOZO AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 14th December, 2010 P.C: Heard Mr. Teles, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 11/6/2010 passed by Commissioner, Goa State Election Commission in Petition no.1 of 2009 disqualifying the petitioner as a member of the Village Panchayat of Verna. 3. The respondent no.1 filed Election petition against the petitioner on the ground that his wife was a contractor in respect of works of Village Panchayat of Verna and as such, the petitioner herein was disqualified in terms of Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Goa State Election Commissioner by the impugned judgment and order held that Section 10(f) of the Act is squarely attracted in the present case and consequently disqualified the petitioner as a member of the Village Panchayat of Verna. 4. Mr. Teles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner has erred in applying Section 10(f) of the Act in as much as the same is not attracted in the present case having regard to the factual situation. According to Mr. Teles merely because the wife of the petitioner is a contractor in respect of the works of the Village Panchayat of Verna the same by itself would not be sufficient ground to attract Section 10(f) of the Act and unless it is shown that the petitioner himself has a direct or indirect share or monetary interest in the work done by the Panchayat or any contract or employment with or on behalf of the Panchayat, the petitioner could not be disqualified in terms of Section 10(f) of the said Act. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the findings given by the Commissioner while disqualifying the petitioner as member of the Village Panchayat of Verna. 6. Section 10(f) of the Act reads thus: 10. Disqualification for membership- A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Panchayat if- "(f) he has directly or indirectly any share or monetary interest in any work done by or to the Panchayat or any contract or employment with, under or by or on behalf of, the Panchayat". 7. From bare perusal of Section 10(f) of the Act is clear that if a member of the Panchayat has directly or indirectly any share or monetary interest in any work done by or to the Panchayat or any contract or employment with, under or by or on behalf of, the Panchayat, he stands disqualified. Admittedly, the wife of the petitioner is a contractor of the Panchayat and there is no doubt that Section 10(f) is attracted in the present case. The petitioner surely has indirect interest in the work of the Panchayat undertaken by his spouse and therefore the finding given by the Commissioner that the petitioner stands disqualified cannot be faulted. Section 10(f) is founded on the principle that a member of the Panchayat must function independently and his close relatives like spouse should not have any interest in the work of the Panchayat. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Teles that Section 10(f) is not attracted. If the said submission is accepted the same would amount to rendering the word"indirect" otiose. . 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-