Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. DONGAONKAR
Sou. Jyotitai Vikas Gawande
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 5331 OF 2008
Decided on : 16-03-2009
Disqualification - Bombay Village Panchayat Act - Section 14(1)(g)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirso, challenged the order disqualifying her under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The disqualification was based on allegations that the petitioner's husband had withdrawn and handled amounts from the Gram Panchayat's accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner did not establish any share or interest in the work or contracts done by the Gram Panchayat, as required by section 14(1)(g). The court also criticized the authorities for drawing general and unsubstantiated inferences, and quashed the disqualification order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act based on the actions of her husband in handling Gram Panchayat's funds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations made by the complainant were insufficient to attract disqualification under section 14(1)(g) and criticized the authorities for drawing general and unsubstantiated inferences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the disqualification order and held that the petitioner had not incurred any disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It also allowed authorities to take any other permissible action against the petitioner's husband and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a challenge to disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, where the petitioner, a Sarpanch, was disqualified due to allegations related to her husband's handling of Panchayat funds (!) (!) .
The core issue is whether the petitioner’s husband's withdrawal and handling of Panchayat funds constitute a share or interest in work or contracts by the Panchayat, as required for disqualification under section 14(1)(g) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that there must be specific material indicating the petitioner’s or her partner’s share or interest in any work, contract, or employment with the Panchayat to establish disqualification (!) .
The complaint primarily alleges that the petitioner’s husband withdrew amounts from the Panchayat’s bank accounts, which were deposited with the Secretary and used for Panchayat purposes. However, there is no specific allegation that these withdrawals relate to any work, contract, or employment that would trigger disqualification (!) (!) .
The court scrutinizes the authorities’ reasoning, criticizing their inference that withdrawal of funds by the petitioner’s husband creates a disqualifying interest without concrete evidence linking such withdrawals to specific work or contracts (!) (!) .
The court notes that mere withdrawal of funds, especially when they are used for Panchayat purposes, does not automatically establish a disqualifying share or interest unless there is clear evidence connecting these actions to specific work, contracts, or employment with the Panchayat (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the allegations are largely based on unsubstantiated inferences and lack detailed proof of any interest or share in the Panchayat’s work or contracts by the petitioner or her husband (!) (!) .
The court concludes that the authorities misinterpreted the scope of disqualification under section 14(1)(g), which requires a direct or indirect share or interest in work or contracts, not merely financial transactions or withdrawals (!) (!) .
As a result, the court sets aside the impugned orders of disqualification, holding that the petitioner has not incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(g) based on the evidence and allegations presented (!) .
The judgment clarifies that authorities retain the right to take other permissible actions against the petitioner’s husband or the Secretary of the Panchayat if warranted, but the petitioner herself is not disqualified under the specified section based on the current record (!) .
The judgment also criticizes the general and vague reasoning of the authorities, underscoring the importance of specific, substantiated evidence when alleging disqualification under this section (!) (!) .
Finally, the court remarks on the broader administrative issues reflected in the case, highlighting the need for better oversight and control in Panchayat administration to prevent such irregularities (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
Heard Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for petitioner, Shri A.S. Sonare, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 & 2 and Shri S.D. Chopde, for respondent no.3 Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner – Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirso, district : Akola is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal No.53/BVP Act 16(2)/2007-2008 of Sirso, arising out the order passed by the Additional Collector, Akola in Case No. Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 Section 14(1)(g) Sirso/55/2007-2008. Additional Collector by his order dated 4.7.2008 had held that there was enough material to disqualify the petitioner under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The petitioner challenged that order before the Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati. Learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act by order dated 28.11.2008, against which this petition is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by no stretch of imagination the allegations levelled by respondent no.3 against the petitioner in his complaint before the Collector, Akola can make out a case for his disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. According to him, allegations against the petitioner's husband precisely were that he had withdrawn certain amount from the bank from Gram Panchayat Account and cheques drawn for its expenditure and that amount was deposited with the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. According to him, the reason for withdrawal of such amount was the indisposition of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat. According to him, the said amount was withdrawn for the expenditure of Gram Panchayat and in fact all such amounts after withdrawal were deposited with the Secretary Gram Panchayat and the same was spent for the given purpose. According to him, the petitioner or her husband has no interest or share whatsoever in the contracts granted by the Gram Panchayat for various works as required under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Panchayat Act. Therefore, according to him, the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner are without application of mind and liable to be set aside in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Learned A.G.P. has supported the impugned orders contending that the husband of the petitioner should not have withdrawn the amounts which were required to be withdrawn by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to be spent by him. Therefore, according to him, there was interest created by the husband of the petitioner in the working and administration of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the petitioner was rightly disqualified under section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Panchayat Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 while supporting the order of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner has referred to the chart filed by him in reply which shows that at about 8 times the cheques which were drawn in favour of Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Raju Wardhe, Gajanan Building Material Supplier, Jyoti Vikas Gawande, Ajay Deorao Gawande, were encashed by the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, there was clear “interest” created by husband of the petitioner in the administration of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, she was rightly disqualified by the Additional Collector as confirmed by the Additional Commissioner.
6. Here is the case where it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner had withdrawn the amount of some cheques drawn under the signature of th petitioner and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amounts though were withdrawn by the husband of the petitioner, the same were deposited with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the same were spent for the pu
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
