IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Archana w/o. Santosh Neharkar - Appellant
Vs.
Anil s/o. Maruti Kshirsagar - Respondent
Writ Petition No.6619 Of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Disqualification - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Section 39 (1), Section 14 (1)(g)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was disqualified for being a Sarpanch under Section 39 (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Subsequently, disqualification proceedings were initiated under Section 14 (1)(g) based on the petitioner's interest in contracts awarded by the grampanchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's relatives received amounts in their accounts from the village panchayat for works executed, indicating the petitioner's interest in the contracts. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the disqualification.
Issues: Disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14 (1)(g) of the Act of 1958 based on her relatives' receipt of amounts from the village panchayat for contracts executed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objective of Section 14 (1)(g) is to disqualify a Sarpanch who misuses their position by misappropriating public money through contracts awarded to relatives. The court emphasized that the petitioner's knowledge of the transactions and failure to dispute the deposit of amounts in her relatives' accounts warranted her disqualification.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged without any orders as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Mr. I.K. Wagh, learned advocate and Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, the learned AGP waive notice for the respective respondents. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.
2. Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejecting her appeal and confirming the order passed by the Collector, Beed dated 05.01.2022 by which she has been disqualified for being a Sarpanch. Petitioner was earlier disqualified on 09.12.2021 under the provisions of Section 39 (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1958’) on the basis of the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praishad. Her disqualification has been set aside by this Court by order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.7812 of 2022 on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer had not conducted independent enquiry as envisaged under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 1958. The matter came to be remanded back to the Additional Commissioner with a further direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad to hold an enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
3. Simultaneously, the Collector initiated disqualification proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 (1)(g) of the Act of 1958 on the ground of the petitioner having interest in the contracts awarded by the grampanchayat. After granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order came to be passed on 05.01.2022 holding that various amounts meant to be paid to the contractors were found to be deposited in the accounts of petitioner’s husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law. She is therefore disqualified under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (g) of the Act of 1958 by order dated 05.01.2022. The order is upheld by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by dismissing the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 07.04.2022.
4. Mr. Shekade, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector as well as the Additional Divisional Commissioner have relied upon the very same report of the Chief Executive Officer, which has been discarded by this Court by its order dated 26.09.2022. That on account of consideration on that report of the Chief Executive Officer, the orders are vitiated. So far as the aspect of deposit of amounts in the accounts of petitioner’s – husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law is concerned, Mr. Shekade would contend that this might lead to initiation of criminal action against them, but the same cannot be a ground to disqualify the petitioner who is democratically elected representative. In support of his contention, Mr. Shekade relies upon the judgment of this Court in Jyotitai Vikas Gawande vs. Additional Commissioner and others, 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 486.
5. Per contra, Mr. Wagh, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 opposes the petition and supports the orders passed by the Collector and Additional Divisional Commissioner. He would submit that apart from the report of Chief Executive Officer, the Collector has also considered the bank statements of petitioner’s husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the amounts meant to be paid to the contractors have only been received by them. He would further submit that the receipt of amounts by them would clearly indicate the interest of the petitioner in those contracts. He therefore prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Mr. Jadhavar, the learned AGP for the State Government also opposes the petition and supports the orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
7. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration. 8. Petitioner is disqualified under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (g) of
Jyotitai Vikas Gawande vs. Additional Commissioner and others
Section 14 (1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 aims to disqualify a Sarpanch who misuses their position by misappropriating public money through contracts awarded to relatives.
Disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is upheld due to the established receipt of funds, reflecting a conflict of interest that threatens the integrity of l....
Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner on disgraceful conduct justifies disqualification without a conviction under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
Point of law: Section 30 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act in light of the present undisputed facts which are stated herein above is giving an impression that the some undue favour appears to have been g....
The judgment emphasizes the need for strict construction of disqualification provisions and highlights the serious repercussions of removing an elected member without adhering to statutory provisions....
[The court established that a comprehensive review of all findings related to misconduct is essential before making a decision on disqualification under Sec. 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchaya....
Disqualification of a Sarpanch under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act for holding a contractor license implicates procedural compliance with provisions concerning natural justice and the right to resp....
Disqualification of a panchayat member requires strict adherence to procedural fairness and proper authority; collective actions taken during crises are not grounds for disqualification under statuto....
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.