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 and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2022 in Case No. 2022/Grampanchayat/Appeal-2/CR-23 passed by the respondent no.2 – Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, so also, the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 – District Collector, thereby disqualifying the petitioner as a member of the Grampanchayat under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 [for short ‘the Act of 1958’].

Brief facts leading to filing the present Writ Petition are as under:

2. The general elections for the Grampanchayat, Kakad Dabha was conducted in the month of January, 2021.

The petitioner contested the said election and was elected as member of the said Grampanchayat. Thereafter, she was elected to the post of Sarpanch from the Scheduled Tribe category on 10.02.2021.

3. On 06.09.2021, the respondent no. 5 – Vitthal Baliram Kale filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 16 (1) of the Act of 1958 before the Collector, Hingoli, seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Act of 1958, for having issued payment to her husband of Rs.19,500/- for contracted work, which is prohibited under the said section.

4. After considering the complaint filed by the respondent no. 5, written say was filed by the petitioner, so also the documents secured from the Grampanchayat by the Collector and having examined the material placed on record, the respondent no. 3 – the District Collector, Hingoli disqualified the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Act of 1958. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.2 – Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, challenging the order passed by the District Collector and the said Appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Nagorao Janardhan Kale is doing labour work of drainage cleaning and light fitting etc. It is further the case of the petitioner that the work done by the husband of the petitioner was immediately prior to the election of the petitioner as a member of the village panchayat and the same is evident from the record of the Panchayat. However, the payment of work was made after she becoming the member of the village panchayat and the Sarpanch of the village panchayat, as such, the petitioner submits that the disqualification under Section 14 (1) (g) of the Act of 1958 is not applicable to the case of the present petitioner. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 – complainant submits that the payment is done by the petitioner after becoming Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, so also, there is doubt as regards the actual work undertaken by the husband of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 further submits that the amount was paid during subsistence of the status of the petitioner being Sarpanch of the village panchayat, therefore, the order passed by the authority below disqualifying the petitioner to continue as a Sarpanch of the village panchayat is lawful. The amount of Rs.19,500/- was paid on 26.03.2021 after the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, as such, the petitioner is an ultimate beneficiary of the amount in question. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the term of earlier Gram Panchayat came to an end on 21.08.2020 and the work is done in October-November 2020. It is further the case of the respondent no. 5 that the resolution no. 4 dated 14.08.2020 has specified that the process of evaluating the work is to be undertaken and the payment has to be done after verification of attendant muster, but the payment is not done in tune with resolution no.4. There is no evaluation of the work be