Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J
Sunita w/o. Suresh Gore – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri A. R. Deshpande
For the Respondents: Smt. T. H. Khan, Shri S. D. Chopde, Shri A. M. Tirukh
The disqualification order was quashed due to procedural violations and insufficient compliance with principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 - Sections 16(1)(a)(iii), 16(1)(k), and 27 - Disqualification from holding elected position - Petitioner challenged disqualification on grounds of procedural violations - Proceedings initiated by the State Election Commission were found to be improper and lacking compliance with natural justice principles - Remand of the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for proper proceedings mandated. (Paras 26, 27, 29)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of providing opportunity to defend against disqualification is paramount - Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards rendered the disqualification order unsustainable. (Paras 20, 23, 24, 26)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disqualification order due to alleged non-disclosure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. investigation process initiated after complaints regarding qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments challenging the legal basis of disqualification. (Para 10) |
| 4. consideration of procedure and principles of natural justice. (Para 12 , 20) |
| 5. discussion on the procedure and principles of natural justice. (Para 13 , 19) |
| 6. ruling on the validity of disqualification process. (Para 18 , 21) |
| 7. importance of adherence to statutory process in disqualification. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. final decision to remand for proper proceedings. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, an elected Member of the Zilla Parishad, Akola, has challenged order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, whereby she has been disqualified from holding the said position under Section 16(1)(a)(iii) and 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 , (for short, “the aforesaid Act”).
2. The Petitioner was elected as Member of the Zilla Parishad in elections held in the year 2020. The Respondent no.2 also stood for the election but the Petitioner stood elected.
3. On 13.03.2020, the Respondent no.2, sent a letter to the State Election Commission alleging that the Petitioner deserved to be disqualified from holding the said position of Member of Zilla Parishad for having suppressed information and for having given false information in the nomination form and the affidavit while contesting the aforesaid elections. The State Election Commission sent a communication dated 18.03.2020 to the Collector of Akola, directing him to conduct inquiry into the allegations levelled by the Respondent no.2 and to submit a report. The Collector in turn sent a communication dated 10.07.2020 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Balapur, to conduct the inquiry and to submit a report. The SDO in turn sent a letter dated 10.08.2020 to the Talathi, Maregaon Bhakre and Secretary of Gram Panchayat of Sonala to remain present in the office with relevant documents to conduct inquiry into the matter.
4. On 29.09.2020, the Talathi submitted his report to the SDO. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat also submitted his report to the SDO, stating that as per records available, the husband of the Petitioner owned property in Mouza, Sonala and tax in respect of the same was not paid since 2014-15 to 2019-20. On 07.01.2021, the SDO submitted a report to the Collector stating that the record revealed about non-disclosure of property details by the Petitioner and that this amounted to furnishing incomplete information, although it was not a fit case for initiating any criminal proceedings. It was further stated that action in the matter could be taken only after obtaining opinion of the State Election Commission. On 17.02.2021, the Collector submitted a report to the State Election Commission, reiterating that it was not a fit case for initiating criminal proceedings and that only incomplete information had been furnished by the Petitioner.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid report dated 17.02.2021 submitted by the Collector, on 19.03.2021, the State Election Commission sent a letter to the Respondent no.1-Divisional Commissioner to initiate a proceeding in the matter to inquire as to whether the Petitioner stood disqualified under Section 16(1) (k) of the aforesaid Act. In pursuance thereof, on 05.04.2021, the Respondent no.1 issued notice to the Petitioner and Respondent nos. 2 and 3 to remain present in the office on 15.04.2021 for hearing on the question of disqualification of the Petitioner. At this stage, on 15.04.2021, the Respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 16(1)(k) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act before the Respondent no.1, seeking disqualification of the Petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the Petitioner had not disclosed properties belonging to herself and her husband in the nominatio
