Disqualification under Section 16(1)(i) requires a clear interest or share in work done by the Zilla Parishad, and the authority must hear objections before making a decision.

JUDGMENT :-

(1) The instant Petition is preferred by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15/04/2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, whereby the Proceedings initiated by the Petitioner came to be rejected.

(2) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under:-

(3) The Petitioner had contested bye-elections held on 05/10/2021 from Sawargaon Constituency, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur. Initially, the Petitioner had raised an objection to the nomination form of the Respondent No. 2 as the Respondent No. 2 is a Registered Contractor for Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad. However, the learned Election OfÏcer overruled the objection raised by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 contested the election under the banner of Bhartiya Janata Party and came to be elected. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur seeking deemed disqualification of the Respondent No.2.

(4) As per the contention of the Petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner, without hearing the Petitioner, forwarded the same to the ofÏce of the Respondent No. 1 – Zilla Parishad for obtaining a report. Eventually, the Respondent No.1 has delegated the powers to the Block Development OfÏcer who obtained a report. The Block Development OfÏcer, Narkhed had called upon the Respondent No. 2 in response to the allegations made by the Petitioner. In her say, the Respondent No. 2 informed that although she was a Registered Contractor, but for the disputed periods, she is not desirous to conclude with the contracts. On the basis of such say, the report was submitted by the Block Development OfÏcer intimating to the Divisional Commissioner that although the tenders were issued in her favour, the work orders were issued, yet she is not deemed disqualified under Section 16(1)(i) of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) as the work orders were not executed. Placing reliance on such report and without hearing the Petitioner, learned Divisional Commissioner rejected the Application/Objection by the order dated 16/11/2022.

(5) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16/11/2022, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6394/2022 before this Court. This Court, by the judgment dated 13/03/2024, allowed the said Petition and observed that the Divisional Commissioner was neither having jurisdiction nor competent to ask for such exercise of obtaining report, that too without hearing the Petitioner. The matter was remanded back and it was directed to decide the same within one month from the date of said judgment.

(6) Upon remand, the learned Divisional Commissioner directed the Petitioner to conduct hearing on 03/04/2024. However, the Petitioner was not adequately permitted to address the issue but only directed to address on the issue that on the date of nominations/election, the Respondent No.2 was executing any work order or not. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the Proceedings initiated by the Petitioner vide order dated 15/04/2024. The order dated 15/04/2024 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent No. 2, along with her husband and son, were residing under one roof. They were running the businesses in the name of Trimurti Hardware and Tiles & Trimurti Building Material Suppliers. The Respondent No.2 was having GST Number and she was also a Registered Contractor in the ofÏce of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur which is still lying in the name of the Respondent No. 2. However, the Divisional Commissioner observed that though the Respondent No. 2 had participated in the tender and was paying taxes, yet the Respondent No. 2 did not execute the work orders in question. Therefore, she does not fall within the framework of Section 16(1)(i) of the said Act. Such finding is unknown