Disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act requires evidence of direct monetary gain from Panchayat work, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 90/2025, disqualifying the petitioner under section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for having taken illegal commercial water connection while acting as a Sarpanch.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is summarized as under :-

The petitioner is the elected Member of the Gram Pancyayat for the period between 2021 to 2026 and later on elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Padalidariya. The present respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed an application under section 14(1)(g) of the Act before the Collector, Ahilyanagar for disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat by contending that the petitioner has taken undue advantage of his position and sought commercial water connection for providing water to his Trimurti Industries Padalidariya from the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also got sanctioned the resolution in the Gram Panchayat meeting dated 25.12.2020 and has taken the commercial water connection under the Government scheme. The Government scheme particularly related to supply of water to the villagers. Since the petitioner has taken commercial water connection, supply of water to the villagers was affected and as such, respondent Nos. 7 to 9 sought disqualification of the petitioner u/s. 14 (1)(g) of the Act.

3. The petitioner contested the dispute filed before the Collector. The Collector, on appreciation of the material on record, observed that the petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.4000/- towards connection charges and has also paid monthly charges of Rs.1000/- towards commercial water charges to the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that whenever there was shortfall of water, connection of the petitioner was stopped. Considering the material available on record, the Collector held that the allegations made against the petitioner are not covered under section 14 (1)(g) of the Act.

4. The said order of the Collector was challenged by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 before respondent No. 2 – The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The respondent No. 2 by the order dated 1.10.2025, disqualified the petitioner under section 14(1)(g) of the Act by observing that the water scheme is implemented by the Central Government for drinking purpose and the water could not have been utilized for the commercial purpose. There is reference in order of monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 1.9.2023 by which it was decided to stop the commercial water connection given to the petitioner. However, it was also observed in the impugned order that the permission to the petitioner was given for taking commercial water connection by virtue of resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.1.2020 and as such, from the year 2020 to 2023 the petitioner was utilizing the water connection for commercial purpose. Considering the material available, the Divisional Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner under section 14 (1)(g) of the Act as a member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.

5. Challenging the impugned order dated 1.10.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, Mr. Yogesh Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner does not fall within the provision of section 14(1)(g) of the Act as it relates to disqualification of the member of the Panchayat, who has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or in any contract with b