In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
Balasaheb Kashinath Tambe & Others
Versus
Nanasaheb Janardhan Khade & Others
Writ Petition No. 9508 of 2013
Decided on: 13-02-2014
Jurisdiction - Disqualification of Panchayat members - Bombay Village Panchayat Act - Sec. 14-B, Sec. 14(1-J)(4), Sec. 182, Sec. 10-A - [14B, 14(1-J)(4), 182, 10-A]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, elected as members of the Gram Panchayat Lakh, were disqualified for not submitting election expenses within one month as per Sec. 14-B of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. They appealed the decision, arguing that the Additional Collector did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that the authorities did not consider the submission of expenses and fraud by the respondent No. 1.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector had the authority to disqualify the petitioners under Sec. 14B, and the petitioners' argument of submitting expenses through the respondent No. 1 was improbable. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain the dispute under Sec. 14-B, consideration of submission of expenses, and fraud by respondent No. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Election Commission's delegation of powers to the Collector under Sec. 14B, the authority of the State Election Commissioner to control election preparations under Sec. 10-A, and the improbability of the petitioners submitting expenses through a rival candidate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Per Court:
1. The petitioners are elected as members of the Gram Panchayat Lakh.
2. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint bearing dispute Application No. 82/2011 and 81/2011 before the Additional Collector seeking disqualification of the petitioners for not submitting the election expenses within one month as contemplated U/Sec. 14-B of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (hereinafter called as "Panchayat Act" for the sake of brevity). The Collector, allowed the said dispute and disqualified the petitioners on the ground of non submission of particulars of expenses within one month. The petitioners filed appeals before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the said appeals. Aggrieved thereby present petition.
3. Mr. Karpe, the learned counsel for petitioners in his usual lucid manner submits that, the Additional Collector did not get the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute U/Sec. 14-B read with Sec. 14(1-J)(4) of the Panchayat Act. The powers under the said sections could only be exercised by the State Election Commissioner and not the Collector. As the proceedings are without jurisdiction, the orders passed therein are nullity. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have not considered the said aspect. Sec. 182 of the Panchayat Act deals with delegation of powers. The State Government can delegate its powers only to the Commissioner. The State Government does not have any jurisdiction to delegate the powers to the Collector. U/Sec. 10-A of the Panchayat Act, the authority given to the State Election Commissioner to delegate its powers to any officer not below the rank of Tahsildar would be subject to Subsection 1 of Sec. 10-A of the Panchayat Act. Sec. 10-A(2) cannot be read in isolation and same is controlled by sub Sec. 1 of Sec. 10-A of the Panchayat Act. Only powers of superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral roll and conducting of all elections of panchayat can be delegated by the State Election Commission to the Collector.
4. The learned counsel further contends that, within the stipulated period, the petitioners had submitted the accounts of expenses incurred in the election within one month. The petitioners had given the same to the respondent No. 1 to submit it before the competent authority. However, the respondent No. 1 played fraud and did not submit the same. Specific contention has been raised in this regard before the authorities, but, the same has not been considered. According to the learned counsel the authorities have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them and have arrived at erroneous conclusion. The details have been given about the manner in which particulars of expenses were sought to be submitted with the authority and the manner in which the respondent No. 1 has played fraud. The learned counsel further submits that again for second time petitioners submitted particulars of expenses.
5. Mr. Sagade, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supports the judgment. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Rehab Housing Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Vishwanath Pandurang Patil reported in 2013(6) Mh. L. J. 417.
6. The learned A. G. P. has produced the copy of the notification wherein the State Election Commission has delegated the powers to the Collector to consider the disqualification of the candidates who have not submitted the election expenses to the Collector. The same is taken on record.
7. Before I advert to the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions:
THE BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ACT.
1. .........
2. .........
10A State Election Commission.
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and conduct of, all elections to the Panchayat shall vest in the State Election Commissioner.
(2) The State Election Commissioner, may, by order, delegate
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.