Shri Agnelo Alexinho Lobo, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at House No. 67/5, Vaddem, Socorro, P.O. Porvorim, Bardez, Goa Vs. the Director of Panchayats, Panaji, Goa,

Decided On : Jan-09-2002

Court : Mumbai

LAW: Section 50, Section 50, Section 50, thePanchayat Raj Act, Section 50(4, Section 50(4, Section 210, Section 50(4, Section 210-A ofthe Act, Section 50as, Section 50, Section 50, Constitutional, Article, ofArticle 311, Article 311, Section 249, Section 50, 4)of Section 50, Article 136,to, the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act

PERSON: F.I. Rebello, Petitionerhad, Panchayat Raj Act, thePetitioner, thePetitioner, Petitioner, Order, thePetitioner, Order, thePetitioner, theOrder, Order, Order, Order, Order, thePetitioner, thePetitioner, theOrder, June,1999, Petitioner, Petitionerto, Petitioner, Order, Sarpanchof, Sarpanch, DeputySarpanch, Sarpanch, thePanchayat, Order, Order, aperson, noteither, Order, Respondentsit, thePetitioner, Statute, thePetitioner, thePetitioner, Nemo, Petitioner, Sarpanch, A. Sarana Vs, aperson, Maneka Gandhi, Koshy Jorgev, Khem Chand v., Tulsiram Patel, B. Karunakar, Shivabasappa Shivappa, K.T.Shaduli GroceryDealer, Dangi v. State, Panchayat Raj, thePetitioner, and(4, Petitionerthat, Memberfor, Sarpanch, DeputySarpanch, isconcerned.11, Administrative Law, John Donaldson, Umar Vaishya v. Union, N.M., S.G. Jaisinghani, thePetitioner, Petitioner, Petitioner, Petitioner, Order, Order, theOrder, thePetitioner, Order

NORP: J.1, Socorro, Petitionerhas, Panchayat, Socorro, Panchayat, Panchayatalso, D.

CARDINAL: 12, 14, 50(5, 16-12-1998, No.3, 3-3-1999, 3-3-1999, 7, three, 15-3-1999, 3, 17-3-1999, two, 4, 5, 13thJune, 2000.3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 50(5, 50(5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 6, 4)and, 5, six, 1977)ILLJ68SC, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1978]2SCR621, 1969]1SCR317, 311, one, 1985)IILLJ206SC, 1994)ILLJ162SC, 1967]65ITR34(SC, 1964)ILLJ24SC, 4, 5, 50, 1990CriLJ2148a, 4, No.4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 1978(2)ELT378(SC, two, one, 5, 1967]65ITR34(SC, 469, 1, 2, 2, five, 5, 4, 105, two, 1, 5, No.1, 2001.14, 2, 3, 14(3

ORG: Sarpanch, the Petitioner a ShowCause Notice under Section 50(4, the Show Cause Noticecontesting, WrittenArguments, Written Arguments, WrittenArguments, the Membership of theVillage Panchayat, asSarpanch, Panchayat, Court, Courtheld, Panchayat, Panchayat, Panchayat, Order of Respondent, Court, the Show Cause Notice, the Show Cause Notice, Panchayat, sham, the Officeof the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, the Show Cause Noticepurported, theOffice of Sarpanch, theVillage Panchayat, Sarpanch, the Village Panchayat, Order, VillagePanchayat, VillagePanchayat, Order, asSarpanch, theDirector, Panchayat, theDirector, Show Cause Notice, theAuthority, TheAuthority, sham, theSection, the ShowCause Notice, Show Cause Notice, The Show Cause Notice, asSarpanch, theSection, Sarpanch/DeputySarpanch, Sarpanch/DeputySarpanch, passingan, the Show Cause Notice, Judexin propria Causa, the ShowCause Notice, Petitionerand, the Show Cause Notice, theSarpanch, TheDirector, ThePetitioner, Lucknow University, TheAuthorities, Authority, Authority, Show Cause Notice, Government, Sarpanch, the Office as Sarpanch, the Apex Court, Smt, Union of India &, The Apex Court, Court, the Tribunal or Body, the University of Kerala, the Apex Court, theHigh Courts, Government, Government, Union of India, Union of India, Apex Court, Khem Chands, The Apex Court, Courthowever, Court, S.G.Jaisinghani v. Union of India, State of Mysore &, notCourts, Court, State, Apex Court, Kerala Sales Tax, the Apex Court, Return, Court, theMadhya Pradesh High Court, Madhya Pradesh, others2000 A I H C, Office, Panchayat, ThatSection, StateGovernment, Government, the Andhra PradeshHigh Court, AIR 2000, AP, Court, Court, Division, the Apex Court, Mukherjee v. Union of India, RajendraSingh v. State of M.P., Associated Cement Companies Ltd., T.C.Shrivastava, TheAuthority, Panchayat, Circumstances, Petitioners, Order, Court, Kailash Kumar, Show Cause Notice, the Petitioneras Sarpanch, H.W.R.Wade & C.F. Forsyth, the English Courts, ApexCourt, High Courts, the Apex Court, Court, Rayon Ltd., Apex Court, ApexCourt, The Siemens Engineering &, The Union of India, the Apex Court, S.N., the Apex Court, Court, T.R. Thandur v. Union of India, AIR1996SC1643, Apex Court, State, Gujarat High Court, theIndian Constitutional, the High Court, ApexCourt, Court, Union of India, theRespondents, Apex Court, State, StateGovernment, theOrissa Grama Panchayat Act, StateGovernment, theSarpanch, the State Government, theState Government, the State Government, Petitioners, asSarpanch, Sarpanch, Office, Judicial, Panchayat, Court, Sarpanch, Order

GPE: Sarpanch, Petitionerdid, Kerala, rejected.10, Respondentwas, Memberand, L.J., Orissa, Alekh, Jena, wasa, aSarpanch

DATE: 7-9-1998,Respondent, 1994, the 1st Respondent, 1999, May 1999, the 1st, the 1st Respondent, the 1st Respondent, five years, 29th October, 1999, January 14, 2000, the 1st Respondent, five years, five years, years, five years, five years, five years, 1959)ILLJ167SC, 1033, 1984)IILLJ105SC, five years, a period offive years, five years, the 1st Respondent, a month, five years, the 1st Respondent, five years, five years, 1988, 1964, four years, five years, five years, 14thJune 1999, January 14, 2000, two years, December, June, 1999, a period offive years, 14thDecember, 2001

ORDINAL: 1st, second, 4th, 14th, 14th, first, second, secondly, second, Firstly, secondly, second, second

EVENT: Respondentdirected the Petitioner

FAC: theRespondent, the Enquiry Officer

WORK_OF_ART: Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, The Show Cause Notice, Sarpanch/Deputy Sarpanch, the Show Cause Noticemerely, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Order under Sub-section, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, Sarpanch, the Orderremoving the Petitioner, Sarpanch

PRODUCT: Respondent No.1, No.1, RespondentNo.1, 91was, TheFull Bench, Grama

TIME: 50 of the Act

LOC: Single, Single, the Grama Panchayat

PERCENT: the 1stRespondent insofar