Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad)
A.M. KHANWILKAR, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Shobhabai Narayan Shinde – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 55, 56 of 2022, S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 295, 451 of 2021
Decided On : 04-01-2022
(A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Section 14B(1) – Maintainability of appeal – No appeal is provided against order of Collector (or of State Election Commission) refusing to disqualify Sarpanch/Member under Section 14B(1) – Similarly, no appeal is provided even against order of Divisional Commissioner (or of State Election Commission) under Section 14B(2) – A limited window against the order under Section 14B(1) passed by Collector (or State Election Commission itself) declaring Sarpanch/Member of a Panchayat as disqualified, is kept open before Divisional Commissioner (or State Election Commissioner, if order under Section 14B(1) is or were to be passed by State Election Commission itself) to remove such disqualification or to reduce period thereof in deserving cases – For nature of power exercised by State Election Commission under Section 14B, no remedy of appeal is envisioned by Statute – Power under Section 14B(2) gets triggered only after an order of disqualification is passed under Section 14B(1) – Appeal cannot lie before same Authority/functionary who had passed order of rejection of prayer to declare member concerned as disqualified – Sans an express statutory intent to provide appeal against order rejecting application to declare a person disqualified, it must follow that upon passing such order power under Section 14B is fully exhausted by State Election Commission (or its delegatee, as the case may be). (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Section 14B(1) – Maintainability of appeal – An authority rejecting the proposal regarding disqualification, cannot sit “in appeal” over its own order of rejection – There is no express power bestowed upon State Election Commission or its delegatee to review its own decision passed under Section 14B(1) or 14B(2) of the Act, as the case may be – To declare a Sarpanch or a member as having incurred disqualification, this question decided by Collector, is essentially in his capacity as a delegatee of State Election Commission and, de jure, deemed to have been decided by State Election Commission itself – A priori, if State Election Commission or its delegatee were to reject or drop proceedings against concerned person or member initiated under Section 14B(1), as being devoid of merits or for any other reason, complainant does not have remedy of appeal against such decision – Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction (ab initio) to entertain assail to such an order of Collector – Such an order becomes final and is not appealable at all – Indeed, it can be assailed before Constitutional Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Impugned common judgment and order is set aside. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 21 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Core issue in these appeals is: whether an appeal could be filed before Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for allegedly having failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission, without offering any good reason or justification for such failure?
Findings of Court:
Once it is held that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of Collector under Section 14B(1) rejecting the complaint filed by respondent No. 2, no other issue needed examination by High Court at his instance.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The core issue in these appeals is: whether an appeal could be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 19591 [for short “the 1959 Act”] declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for allegedly having failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission, without offering any good reason or justification for such failure?
3. Briefly stated, the appellants contested elections held in September, 2018 for electing a new Panchayat. The appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 295/2021 had been directly elected as a Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kusumba, Taluka and District Dhule in the State of Maharashtra, from public, whereas, the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 451/2021 was elected as a member of the same Village Panchayat.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed two Dispute Applications being Nos. 10/2019 and 11/2019 in the office of respondent No. 5-Collector, seeking declaration under Section 14B(1) that the appellants herein stood disqualified for not submitting the election expenses within the stipulated time. The Collector, after considering the relevant material and the submissions of the rival parties, rejected both the Dispute Applications by separate judgment and order dated 5.2.2019 being devoid of merits.
5. The respondent No. 2 thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Region2 [for short “the Divisional Commissioner”] questioning the correctness of the rejection of his Dispute Applications by the Collector. The Divisional Commissioner allowed both the appeals by separate judgment and order dated 15.7.2019 and thereby declaring the appellants as disqualified and ineligible to remain as Gram Panchayat Sarpanch/Member.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad3 [for short “the High Court”] being Writ Petition Nos. 9244/2019 and 9245/2019.
7. As common question had arisen for consideration, the High Court vide impugned common judgment and order dated 17.12.2020, dismissed both the writ petitions and affirmed the order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner against the appellants herein.
8. The principal challenge before the High Court was about the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeals as filed by the respondent No. 2. For, the 1959 Act does not provide for an appeal against the order passed by the Collector under Section 14B(1) in rejecting the application for declaring the incumbent member as disqualified. Further, the remedy provided for consequent to the decision of the Collector under Section 14B(1) before the Divisional Commissioner, is limited to removing the disqualification or reducing the period of any such disqualification. However, in a case where the Collector rejects the application for disqualification of Sarpanch/Member, no further remedy of appeal is provided for in the 1959 Act. The High Court negatived this contention and opined that it was open to the aggrieved applicant(s) to assail such decision of the Collector, by way of an appeal under Section 14B(2) before the Divisional Commissioner. To buttress this conclusion, the High Court drew analogy from remedy of appeal against order of Collector under Section 16(2) before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 16(2) and then adverted to the decision in Suchita Murlidhar Kewati (Sarpanch) and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2013 (6) Mh. L.J. 414. Further, having rejected the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeals, the High Court proceeded to affirm the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner of reversing the decision of the Collector, on merits. Accordingly, the writ petitions
No appeal can be filed before Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by Collector under Section 14B(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the timely submission of election expenses and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the District Collector's disqualifi....
When the legislature in its wisdom has in a plain language vested a power under Sub Section 2 either to remove the disqualification or to reduce its quantum, as is imposed under Sub Section 1, it can....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Election Commission's satisfaction under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, and the need for stric....
The court established that the Additional Commissioner retains the authority to hear appeals under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act despite amendments, due to valid delegation of powers.
Disqualification under Section 14(1)(d) of the Panchayats Act applies automatically post-removal under Section 39, upheld by the court highlighting the legal effects of interim orders.
The duty of the Collector to conduct a proper inquiry and decide on disqualification within a specified time frame, following the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Fraud and misrepresentation invalidate legal actions and judgments, and the court has the authority to set aside orders obtained by fraud.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
