The interpretation of disqualification provisions under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and subsequent amendments, particularly in the context of validity certificate submission and the impact on NCM outcomes.

JUDGMENT

GS Patel, J.

1. The Petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Koregaonmul. For a time, he believed he enjoyed not just the friendship but the political support of Respondents Nos 9 to 13. But he was soon disabused of these notions for, at a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence, Respondents Nos 9 to 13 voted against the Petitioner. Had they not, they would undoubtedly have continued to be the best of friends. But since they did, the Petitioner now contends that his former friends and supporters were disqualified as members of the Gram Panchayat and could not have voted at all on that No Confidence Motion (“NCM”). If their votes are discounted, the motion of no confidence is not pass with the statutorily mandated majority and the Petitioner continues as the Sarpanch.

2. The entirety of the Petition therefore is, in one line, this: “with you or without you, I am the Sarpanch”.

3. The facts are only three. The arguments are many. Elections were held to the Gram Panchayat on 15th January 2021. The results were declared on 18th January of that year, and 13 persons, including the present Petitioner, were elected to that Gram Panchayat. The Petitioner was then elected as the Sarpanch. On 15th February 2023, the Tehsildar issued a letter or a notice to all 13 members of the Gram Panchayat intimating them that a special meeting would be held to consider a No Confidence Motion filed against the Petitioner. That meeting took place on 21st February 2023. The vote at that meeting was 10:3 in favour of the NCM, i.e., 10 persons out of 13 voted for the Motion, i.e., against the Petitioner, and three against the Motion i.e., in favour of the Petitioner.

4. What Mr Shah argues is that if Respondents Nos 9 to 13 are indeed held to be disqualified, then the vote on the NCM has to be reduced by that many invalid votes. The number in favour of the Motion against the Petitioner would drop from 10 to 6. This means that there would be only six in favour of the Motion and against the Petitioner (and three in favour of the Petitioner against the Motion), which does not meet the statutory requirement for a NCM to pass.

5. The Tehsildar wrote to the 1st Respondent, the Collector, about the outcome of the meeting on 21st February 2023. The Petitioner filed a dispute application under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 on 27th February 2023. The Collector rejected this on 23rd March 2023. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No 3971 of 2023. On 3rd April 2023, this Court quashed the order of 23rd March 2023 and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication. On 10th July 2023, the State Government issued an Ordinance which is now an Act and to which we will have reference hereafter. On 13th July 2023, the Collector passed the impugned order dismissing the dispute application but this time invoking the Ordinance in question (now the Act).

6. First, as to the provisions of this statute. We had occasion to consider this at some length in our judgment in Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7924 of 2023; judgment dated 20th September 2023, Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:27994-DB. The relevant portions of that judgment should suffice for the purposes of this statutory framework.

7. We are concerned here with Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. We reproduce first paragraphs 5 and 6 of our judgment in Bapu Rajaram Kalel, which reads as under:

“5. Since Sudhir was elected following a reservation, he had to produce a Caste or Tribe Validity Certificate. This takes us immediately to Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. This Section was added by Maharashtra Act XXXVII of 2006. It carried a proviso that was substituted by a further amending Maharashtra Act IV of 2022 with effect from 6th December 2021.

6. The amended Section 10-1A with its am