Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Amit Tanaji Gote - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8585, 8587, 8588 of 2021
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Election Expenses - Disqualification of Gram Panchayat Member - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 14B - The court disposed of three Writ Petitions with identical facts and a common petitioner, Amit Tanaji Gote, an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, seeking disqualification of Respondent No.5, also an elected member, for failing to lodge detailed election expenses within 30 days of the election result announcement. The District Collector disqualified Respondent No.5, but the Divisional Commissioner set aside the order. The Petitioner argued that the Divisional Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction due to a State Election Commission notification. The Respondent contended that the election expenses were submitted within the prescribed time and that there was no provision for disqualification appeal under Section 14B. The court found that the election expenses were submitted within the stipulated time and directed Respondent No.5 to file an Application/Appeal under Section 14B(2) within 4 weeks. The court quashed the Divisional Commissioner's orders and maintained status quo until the Competent Authority's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The court disposed of three Writ Petitions with identical facts and a common petitioner, Amit Tanaji Gote, an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, seeking disqualification of Respondent No.5, also an elected member, for failing to lodge detailed election expenses within 30 days of the election result announcement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election expenses were submitted within the stipulated time and directed Respondent No.5 to file an Application/Appeal under Section 14B(2) within 4 weeks. The court quashed the Divisional Commissioner's orders and maintained status quo until the Competent Authority's decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timely submission of election expenses and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the District Collector's disqualification order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the election expenses were submitted within the stipulated time and directed Respondent No.5 to file an Application/Appeal under Section 14B(2) within 4 weeks. The court quashed the Divisional Commissioner's orders and maintained status quo until the Competent Authority's decision.
Final Decision: The court directed Respondent No.5 to file an Application/Appeal under Section 14B(2) within 4 weeks, quashed the Divisional Commissioner's orders, and maintained status quo until the Competent Authority's decision.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present judgment shall dispose of all three Writ Petitions.
2. The facts are identical in all three Writ Petitions. Petitioner is common in all three Writ Petitions. His name is Amit Tanaji Gote. He is one of the elected member of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.5 in all three Writ Petitions are also elected members of the same Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.8587 of 2021 was elected as Sarpanch subsequently. Brief facts necessary for adjudication are outlined hereinunder:-
2.1. On 15.01.2021, election of member of Gram Panchayat Shiraswadi, Tal. Haveli, District Pune was held.
2.2. On 18.01.2021, votes were counted and on 29.01.2021 result of election was declared.
2.3. Pursuant to election, on 08.03.2021, Petitioner filed three separate Applications seeking disqualification of Respondent No.5 in the three Writ Petitions as member of the Gram Panchayat. These disqualification Applications were filed on the principal ground that all three i.e. Respondent No.5 failed to lodge the detailed Affidavit of election expenses within 30 days from the date of announcement of the result of the election i.e. on or before 01.03.2021.
2.4. On 17.08.2021, Respondent No.5 in all three Writ Petitions filed their separate individual reply and resisted the Applications.
2.5. On 06.09.2021, Tahsildar, Tal. Haveli, District Pune addressed a letter to the District Collector, Pune stating that Respondent No.5 had not filed the detailed Affidavit of election expenses as there was no entry in the inward – outward register maintained by his office.
2.6. On 12.10.2021, District Collector, Pune passed a detailed order allowing the Applications filed by the Petitioner thereby disqualifying the Respondent No.5’s election. Each of the Respondent No.5 in the three Writ Petitions filed an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune to challenge the Collector’s order of disqualification.
2.7. On 17.11.2021, Petitioner filed his reply in each of the three Appeals.
2.8. On 22.11.2021, Tahsildar, Tal. Haveli, District Pune addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune stating that the detailed Affidavit of election expenses was not filed by Respondent No.5 in all 3 cases.
2.9. On 23.11.2021, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune passed a reasoned order and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Pune after hearing the parties. This order is impugned in the three Writ Petitions. Reasons given in the order are identical in all three Writ Petitions.
2.10. During the pendency of the above proceedings, by Notification dated 07.09.2021 the State Election Commission (for short “the Commission”) empowered the Commission itself to hear Appeal under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”), which power was earlier delegated to the Divisional Commissioner. The effect of this Notification as being applicable to the facts of the present case is argued by the Petitioner and it is submitted that the impugned order is therefore without jurisdiction.
2.11. Petitioner has impugned the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune setting aside the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the District Collector, Pune on the ground that under the State Election Commission Notification dated 03.08.2016 it is mandatory to give account of the election expenses within 30 days from the date of announcement of result of election which has not been given by Respondent No.5 to the Competent Authority. Petitioner has relied upon Report/Letters of the Tahsildar, Tal. Haveli, District Pune dated 05.03.2021, 23.08.2021 and 22.12.2021 in support of the above ground. In that view Petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is vague and passed without complete non application of mind. Petitioner would further submit that day to day expenses have not been submitted by the Respondent No.5 as required, but have been submitted collectively on 15.02.2021. Petitio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the timely submission of election expenses and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the District Collector's disqualifi....
No appeal can be filed before Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by Collector under Section 14B(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member ....
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 can....
Fraud and misrepresentation invalidate legal actions and judgments, and the court has the authority to set aside orders obtained by fraud.
Disqualification of a Panchayati Raj member requires adherence to prescribed inquiry procedures; failing which, actions are illegal and contravene principles of natural justice.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the State Election Commissioner must consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials and relegate parties to a competent....
The Deputy Registrar must consider justifications for delays in lodging election expense accounts before issuing disqualification orders, and the authority to disqualify ultimately lies with the Regi....
Challenges to an election based on a candidate's disqualification existing at the time of nomination must exclusively be decided through an election petition before a competent tribunal. Administrati....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
