Point of Law: 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 cannot be said that it even intended to confer the power to enhance or increase the period of disqualification.

JUDGMENT :

Since these are counter Writ Petitions and a common question of law based on same facts arises in both these Petitions, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2] Heard both the sides. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocates and the learned A.G.P. for the respective respondents in both these petitions waive service. At their request, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.

3] For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid confusion, individual parties would hereinafter be referred to by their first names.

4] The common question that arises for determination is as to whether the Divisional Commissioner as a delegate of the State Election Commission has the powers to increase the period of disqualification fixed by the Collector as a delegate of State Election Commission under sub-Section 1 of Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Z.P. Act]. The question arises from a chequered history, the relevant facts being as follows:

(i) The petitioner Gulabrao contested the election of Panchayat Samiti,Dhule which was held under the Z.P. Act on 2/12/2013 but did not succeed. As per the provisions of Section 15B, he failed to furnish election expenses for the two days i.e. the date of voting and the date of counting of the votes. He furnished some explanation to the respondent Collector inter alia claiming it to be a sufficient ground for his inability to furnish the expenses. The Collector by his order dated 3/11/2014 disqualified him for a period of 5 years under Sub Section 1 of Section 15B of the Z.P. Act. The matter went upto the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1622/2020 arising of S.L.P.(Civ) No.16827/19, in a group of matters in respect of similar challenge. Though the Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Collector to the extent of Gulabrao having incurred disqualification under Section 15B(1), by applying doctrine of proportionality, it struck down the quantum of disqualification of 5 years and directed the respondent Collector to pass an appropriate order regarding period of disqualification. Gulabrao and the other petitioner Ritesh then appeared before the Collector who by his order dated 11/6/2021 reduced the period of disqualification to two years.

(ii) In the mean time the petitioner Gulabrao filed a nomination form for being elected as a Sarpanch of village Mukti under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 (hereinafter the V.P.Act) on 21/9/2017. Respondent Pradip raised an objection to his nomination but it was turned down. Gulabrao got elected as a Sarpanch on 11/10/2017. The election was challenged by respondent Pradip and Ritesh and was declared his election as void ab initio in view of the disqualification incurred by him under Section 15B(1) of the Z.P. Act. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court which, as mentioned hereinabove, remanded the matter to Collector for taking a decision as to the period of disqualification.

5] Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in respect of petitioner Gulabrao can be found in paragraphs 30, 31, 35, 43 and 44 as under :

“30] It is also submitted that the disqualification for a period of five years is wholly disproportionate to the default committed by the appellant of not filing the election expenses incurred on the date of election.

31] Similar argument has been examined in an appeal preferred by Laxmi Bai. For the reasons recorded therein, we find that the order of disqualification for a period of five years is illegal and untenable and cannot be sustained.

35] The High Court followed its earlier judgment reported as Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and Others holding that the disqualification incurred by a candidate will entail disqualification to contest an election under 1959 Act in terms of Section 13 of the said Act. Since the appellant has been disqualified under the provisions of 1961 Act, therefore, suc