Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Usha Arjun Pawar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No.7383 Of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J. V. Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P. D. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State, Mr. A. A. Fulfagar, Advocate.
Elected officials can be disqualified for submitting fraudulent documents for reserved positions, and the Collector has jurisdiction to declare such elections void under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - Section 33 - Disqualification of elected Sarpanch - The petitioner was disqualified on grounds of presenting a fabricated caste validity certificate for a reserved post - The Collector rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 33(5) to declare the election void due to fraudulent representation. (Paras 2, 9-11)
(B) Election Validity - The Collector has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the validity of elections in light of fraudulent practices. (Paras 9, 11)
(C) Caste Validity - Submitting a valid caste certificate is essential for nominations in reserved categories; failure to do so can lead to disqualification. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleges wrongful disqualification from Sarpanch position based on the claim of election fraud regarding caste. The validity certificate used by the petitioner was declared false by authorities.
Findings of Court:
The election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was declared void due to fraudulent documents.
Issues: The main issues include the authority of the Collector to disqualify based on validity disputes and the legitimacy of the caste certificate presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector was empowered to rule on the validity of elections arising from fraud, asserting that false representation regarding caste undermines the entire election process.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disqualification due to false representation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedure for challenging election results. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding the validity of election. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. collector's jurisdiction over election validity disputes. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. consequences of fraudulent election candidacy. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. writ petition dismissal affirmed. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT:
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. The petitioner impugns order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/2025, thereby upholding order dated 30.12.2024 passed by District Collector, Jalgaon in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No.57/2022, thereby setting aside petitioner from holding post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Shirsoli, Taluka Jalgaon in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act, 1959’).
3. The petitioner was elected as Member of Village Panchayat Shirsoli from General Women Category in the Election held in 2021. On 27.02.2014, special meeting was convened for election of Sarpanch. The post of Sarpanch was specifically reserved for OBC Category. The meeting for election was scheduled on 05.03.2024. The petitioner was declared as elected as Sarpanch.
4. The respondent no.7 filed Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No.57/2024 under Section 33 (5) of Act, 1959 alleging that petitioner presented fabricated caste validity certificate alongwith her nomination for election of Sarpanch against reserved post. Eventually, her acceptance of nomination was vitiated by fraud. It was contended that validity certificate issued in the name of one Suraj Jagtap was manipulated and used by petitioner. The learned Collector, Jalgaon called report from Tahsildar, so also called information as to validity certificate presented by petitioner from concerned Department i.e. Caste Scrutiny Committee at Dhule, who certified that Validity Certificate No.3354 dated 02.03.2024 was not issued by that Authority. Eventually, learned Collector allowed Dispute Application and declared petitioner as disqualified in terms of Section 33 of Act, 1959.
5. The petitioner filed Gram Panchayat Appeal No.01/2025 before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, who affirmed order of District Collector, while dismissing Appeal.
6. Mr. J. V. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner in his endeavour to assail impugned order made twofold submissions. Firstly, petitioner was elected as Open Women. However, when she submitted her nomination for post of Sarpanch, which was reserved for OBC Category, she had submitted token/acknowledgment of pending proposal for caste validity submitted to competent Scrutiny Committee and later on, on 01.10.2024 Competent Committee accepted her caste claim and issued caste validity certificate in her favour. As such, allegation of fraud are baseless. Secondly, he contends that her nomination was accepted without any demur. The process of election was conducted in accordance with law. The objection as to her nomination on the ground of presentation of false validity certificate cannot be raised under Section 33 of Act, 1959. The proceeding for disqualification on such ground would not fall within ambit and scope of jurisdiction of District Collector under Section 33 of Act, 1959.
7. Per contra, Mr. P. D. Patil, learned AGP for respondents- State and Mr. Fulfagar, learned Advocate for respondent no.7 justifies impugned order.
8. Having considered submissions advanced, it is not in dispute that petitioner was elected as Member of Village Panchayat Shirsoli from Open Women Category. Later on, she submitted her nomination for post of Sarpanch, which was reserved for OBC Category. Section 33 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act provides for procedure of Election. Sub-Clause (5) of Section 33
