1. The present petitioner was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter as a Sarpanch of village Asegaon Gram Panchayat, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. The present respondent no. 4 filed Complaint stating that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher with the school run by Mukteshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. He has not obtained prior permission of the management, so also, the said school is getting aid from the Zilla Parishad and, therefore, it is a local authority.

2. The additional Collector vide its Judgment and Order dated 30/12/2010 held that the petitioner is disqualified to contest the election in view of Section 14 (i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 [ For short, ‘ Act of 1958 ’ ] and in view of Sub Section ( 2 ) of Section 42 of the M.E.P.S. Rules.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed Appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 4/5/2011. The petitioner has assailed the said Judgments before this Court.

4. Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (i) the authorities have failed to consider that Rule 42 ( 2 ) of the M.E.P.S. Rules have been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Bombay University and College Teachers’ Union V/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1990 ( 2 ) Bombay Cases Reporter – 324;(ii) Even otherwise the petitioner has produced on record the due permission from the management to contest the election; (iii) the authorities have failed to consider that the petitioner is neither servant of the Govt. nor that of the local authority. As such, the petitioner can not be disqualified U/s 14 ( i ) of the Act of 1958. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of RangnathSitaram Yerawar & Others V/s V.N.Muley & another reported in 1992 ( 1 ) Mh.L.J. 853 and another unreported Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BhagwanS/o Nathaji Mirkad V/s The State of Maharashtra & Others [ W.P. No. 6481 of 2007 ]; (iv) The said Act is a complete Code in itself. When the statute does not prescribe for any other ground of disqualification. The petitioner could not have been disqualified only because he was at the relevant time working as the Assistant Teacher with the College. The provisions of the other Acts can not be imported and can not be taken aid of while interpreting the provisions of the said Act, more particularly, when it is complete Code in itself.

5. Per contra, Mr. R.V. Gore, the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 4 with all his persussive skill submits that ( i ) the object and spirit behind the enactment will have to be considered. Whenever an exception is sought to be carved out, the statute lays down an explanation or exception to the same just as it is laid down in Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, as no such explanation is given to Section 14 ( i ), the wider interpretation to the said provision will have to be given; (ii) as the said institution is receiving aid from the Zilla Parishad, it will come within the definition and ambit of servant of local authority. For the said purpose, Mr. Gore, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JayaBachchan V/s Union of India & Others reported in 2006 ( 5 ) SCC – 266and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Velingkar Brothers reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 241; (iii) The term ‘ office of profit ’ has been given wide interpretation and the restricted meaning can not be attributed to it. The object will have to be considered and considering the object that a person who is elected to the office, he should not hold any other office, will have to be considered. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Consumer Educatio