Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
[Nagpur Bench]
M.S. Ratnaparkhi A.A. Desai, JJ.
Suresh Madhaorao Bhange others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Collector, Wardha others ... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1187 of 1988, decided on 6-10-1989.
Advocates appeared :
C.S. Kaptan, for the petitioners.
A.B. Chaudhari, for respondent No. 3.
S.P. Dharamadhikari P.G. Pathak, for Respondent 4 and 5.
A.S Bobde, Advocate-General, for respondents 1 6.
Section 3 (1) (b), Explanation - Disqualification of members of Zilla Parishad - Breach of directions issued by party-Such directions must have been issued by Zilla Parished party-When there being breach of such directions -Disqualification Act comes into being -Breach of directions issued by apex party will not attract disqualification under the Act.
Assuming far the time being that the MPCC-(l) was the apex body as far as the disciplinary action was concerned, still it could not assume the local position of Zilla Parishad Party" as defined in Section 2. It may take the disciplinary action against their members, but it had no authority to take a penal action of disqualification as contemplated under Section 3 of the Disqualification Act. It is only the Zilla Parished Party, which could issue the directions. It is only such directions that the members were obliged to follow then it is only the voting or abstention to vote contrary to such ditections that the disqualification followed. The relations inter se between the members and the apex party of the original political party may be ethical or moral. But for attracting the legal disqualification what was necessary was the mandate from the Zilla Parishad party and that party alone. The General Secretary of the MPCC (I) may be an authority or may be authorised by MPCC (I), but the authority contemplated under Section 3 (I) (b) of the Disqualification Act is the authority authorised by the Zilla Parishad Party and none else. the breach of the mandate issued by the General Secretary P.P.C.C. (i) does not entail a disqualification contemplated under Section 3 (I) (b) of the Disqualification Act. The Collector was definitely wrong III Identifying the M.P.C.C. (I) with the Zilla Parishad Party or in enlarging the sphere of jurisdiction of M.P.C.C. (i). The sphere of the Zilla Parishad is very much limited. The M.P.C.C. (i) may have the supervisory authority, but it was not competent enough to issue a mandate, the breach whereof could attract the mischief of Section 3 (I) (b) of the Disqualification Act.
Sections 2 (p) and 3 (1) (b)-Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987, Rule 3-Zilla Parishad party-It is this party which is referred to in Section 3 (1) (b) and not the Apex Political Party-It is this party which to give directions -Voting or observation to vote contrary to these directions exposes members to disqualification.
These rules taken together very positively lay down that the party means a Zilla Parishad party. It has to elect its leader. The leader has to perform some duties inasmuch as he has to submit a list of all the members to the Collector. Rule 4 lays down that every member so elected shall furnish the necessary information to the Collector in the prescribed from. Sub rule (5) of rule 3 lays down that if any member of the Zilla Parishad votes contrary to any direction issued by such party or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining the permission, the leader of such party has to inform the Collector within 30 days from the date of such voting. The rules leave no doubt in the mind that the party contemplated is the Zilla Parishad Party and the leader contemplated is the leader of such party, and not of the apex party.
It is the Zilla Parished Party which has to give directions. It is incumbent upon the members or councillors to follow those directions. Voting or abstention to vote contrary to these directions exposes the members to disqualification flowing from sub-rule (5) or Rule 3 (I). The apex party is nowhere in the picture. This is the legal position which we get from the definition in Section 2 and the positive provisions of Section 3.
Rule 3 .
See Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987, Sections 2 (p) and 3 (1) (b).
2. There were elections to the Zilla Parishad at Wardha in 1979 of so and the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 contested those elections on the official symbol of Congress-(I) and they were elected on that symbol. Other persons have also contested the elections and they were also elected. One Mr. Raut was elected as President of the Zilla Parishad. One Mr. Ingole (present respondent No. 4) was elected as a Vice President. One Mr. Gopal Tukaramji Zate (respondent No. 5) was elected a Chairman of the Works and Health Committee of the Zilla Parishad. They also belong to the congress-(I) party. Special meeting of the Zilla Parishad was sought to be convened on 18-12-1987 for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against the President and the Vice-President. The General Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee issued a letter dated 7-12-1987 not to vote in favour of the motion of no confidence. Inspite of this directive from the party, the petitioners voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence. The motion was passed. Another meeting was sought to be convened on 28-12-1987, for considering the motion of no confidence against Gopal Tukaramji Zate. The Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Committee Congress-(I) issued a directive to all the members of the Zilla Parishad not to vote in favour of that motion as a result of that mandate, the petitioner No. 1 to 6 voted in favour of that motion as a result of which the motion came to be passed.
3. Three petitions came to be filed against the present petitioners and others under section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Disqualification Act) before the Collector, Wardha. It was alleged that the petitioners and others, voted contrary to the directives issued by the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (1) without obtaining any prior permission and therefore, they made themselves liable to the disqualification under section 3(i) of the Disqualification Act. It was their case that all the petitioners and others were elected to the Zilla Parishad on the Congress (I) ticket and they formed the Zilla Parishad party after the elections. Inspite of the fact that the appropriate authority issued the letter with a mandate not to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion, these petitioners and others acted contrary to the mandate, as a result of which the motion came to be passed and as such they have incurred the disqualification under section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act.
4. The petition was opposed on various grounds. It was alleged that the Zilla Parishad party was not at all in existence since 1982. It was already dissolved in 1982 and it was never reconstituted thereafter. It was, their contention that there was no leader of this party elected by the party itself and, therefore, no mandate could be given to the members. The letter written by the General Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress-(I) Committee was a letter from the leader of the Zilla Parishad Party and, therefore, contravention of that letter could not disqualify the members including the petitioners. It was also their contention that the Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress (I) Committee was incompetent to issue such letter because what is contemplated under section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act is the direction by the leader of the party or by a person or authority authorised either by the party or by the Aghadi or the Front. The letter issued by
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
