SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Shri. Tanaji Jagannath Palave – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4784 of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.A. Kumbhkoni, Advocate General a/w. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP and Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP, Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade, Advocate, Mr. Milind Shambharkar, Collector, Solapur present by Video Conferencing.

Fraud and misrepresentation invalidate legal actions and judgments, and the court has the authority to set aside orders obtained by fraud.

Headnote:

Fraud - Disqualification of Elected Member - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Section 14(b), Section 16 - 14.06.2016, 18.02.2021

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, an elected Member of Panchayat Samiti, sought disqualification of Respondent No.5, who was elected despite being disqualified under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The Collector rejected the Dispute Application, leading to the present Writ Petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that Respondent No.5 had fraudulently contested the election despite being disqualified, taking advantage of a mistake in the disqualification order. The Court set aside the impugned order, quashed the election of Respondent No.5, and directed appropriate action against her for misrepresentation and fraud.

Issues: Disqualification of elected member under Section 14B of the Act, fraudulent contesting of election, validity of the impugned order, misrepresentation and fraud by Respondent No.5.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud and misrepresentation cannot be allowed to stand, and any judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity. The Court has the right and obligation to set aside orders obtained by fraud and not allow the benefits obtained by fraud to continue.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, the election of Respondent No.5 was set aside, and the Collector was directed to initiate appropriate steps against Respondent No.5 for misrepresentation and fraud.

JUDGMENT :

S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.

By the present petition, the Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :

    "B. That by appropriate orders as well as directions of this Hon'ble Court, the record and proceedings in respect of the Dispute Application (Dispute Application No. 01/2021) on the file of the Respondent No. 2 the Collector, Solapur be called for;

C. That after going through the same, by appropriate Writ, Order as well as directions of this Hon'ble Court the impugned order dated 18/02/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 the Collector, Solapur which was received by the Petitioner on 23/02/2021 thereby rejecting Dispute Application filed by the Petitioner be quashed and set aside;

D. That by appropriate orders as well as directions of this Hon'ble Court the Dispute Application filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No. 2 Collector, Solapur pursuant to the provisions of the Section 14(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act be kindly allowed and the Respondent No. 5 be disqualified from the Post of Member of the Village Panchayat, Mandave, Taluka Malshiras, District, Solapur forthwith.”

2. The Petitioner is the elected Member of Panchayat Samiti from Ward No.5 of Village Panchayat - Mandave, the election to which was held on 15.01.2021. In the same election Respondent No.5 was also declared elected as Member from Ward No.4.

3. It is the Petitioner's case that Respondent No.5 was disqualified from contesting election for a period of 5 years by order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the then Collector, Solapur under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ("the said Act"). Despite the subsistence of the said order, Respondent No.5 contested the election from Ward No.4 of Village Panchayat - Mandave on 15.01.2021 by misrepresentation and fraud and was elected. Petitioner has therefore, inter alia, prayed for disqualification of Respondent No.5.

4. Before we advert to the submissions made by the respective Advocates, it will be apposite to refer to the relevant facts briefly.

4.1. General Election for the term 2015-2016 to 2020-2021 of Panchayat Samiti - Mandave was held in the year 2016. Respondent No.5 - Nagarabai Jaywant Palave contested the said election. After the election was over, Respondent No.5 failed to submit the election expenses within the prescribed time limit; Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Malshiras therefore filed Dispute Application No.4091 of 2016 before the Collector, Solapur for seeking disqualification of Respondent No.5 under Section 14B of the said Act.

4.2. Two show cause notices dated 07.05.2016 and 24.05.2016 were issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the Respondent No.5 - Nagarabai Jaywant Palave to attending the hearings on 13.05.2016 and 03.06.2016. The notices were received by Rajendra Jaywant Palave, son of Respondent No.5. By reply dated 03.06.2016 Respondent No.5 - Nagarabai Jaywant Palave informed the Election Returning Officer that her son Rajendra Jaywant Palave will submit the election expenses, but failed to submit the same.

4.3. By a speaking order dated 14.06.2016 the Collector, Solapur allowed the Dispute Application and passed an order restraining the Respondent No.5 from contesting the Grampanchayat election or become a Member of the Grampanchayat for a period of 5 years from the date of the order. However, in this order the name of the Respondent No.5 as appearing in the cause title was mentioned as Nagarabai Tanaji Palave, whereas in entire order the reference to the Respondent No.5 was made as "Opponent".

4.4. General election for Panchyat Samiti - Mandave for the term 2020-2021 to 2025-2026 were announced in the year 2020. Respondent No.5 - Nagarabai Jayawant Palave filed her nomination form and contested the election. Respondent No.5 filed a specific declaration in part II of Form A under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Rules, 1959, declaring that she has not been disqualified as a Member of the Grampanchayat for contest

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top