Disqualification of candidates for election to the Gram Panchayat is automatic under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act upon prior removal from office.

ORAL J UDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination paper of petitioner for the post of Member of the Gram Panchayat. The election program for holding election of Gram Panchyat, Kolambi was declared on 07.09.2017. The petitioner filed his nomination for the post of Member of Gram Panchayat. The respondent no.3 raised objection to reject nomination of petitioner on ground that the petitioner was disqualified in view of order of Divisional Commissioner by virtue of order dated 22.02.2016 in exercise of power under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (for short, “the said Act”). The said objection of the respondent no.3 has been upheld by the impugned order. The petitioner has therefore filed present writ petition challenging the said order.

3. This Court on 28.09.2017 issued notice and directed the respondent no.1 to provisionally accept petitioner’s nomination form and allow him to contest the election of Gram Panchayat by allotting symbol. However, this court directed returning officer not to declare the result of the petitioner.

4. On 16.01.2018, this Court directed the Returning Officer to declare the result and made result of election subject to further order passed in the present writ petition.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner by placing reliance of this Court on the cases of Narayan Atmaram Borase Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , 2005 (3) ALL MR 410 and Shri Sunil Balaram Roy Vs. The Divisional Commissioner and others , 2006(6) ALL MR 215 submitted that the disqualification under Section 14(1)(d) is not automatic and in absence of adjudication in relation to disqualification of the petitioner, the returning officer has no power to disqualify the petitioner. According to him, the order passed in exercise power under Section 39(1) of the said Act disqualifies him for remainder of the term and therefore the disqualification under Section 14 (1) (d) is not at all attracted. He therefore prayed that he be allowed to continue as a Member of the Gram Panchayat.

6. Per contra, learned Advocate and AGP for respondents vehemently opposed the said submissions. According to them, the disqualification under Section 14(1)(d) of the said Act is attracted moment order under Section 39(1) is passed. According to them, no adjudication is necessary as the ingredients of the Section 14(1)(d) of the said Act are fulfilled. According to them, nature of enquiry to be conducted by the returning officer is summary in nature and returning officer prima facie needs to be consider whether the petitioner is eligible for being appointed as a Member of Gram Panchayat or not.

7. Rival contentions fall for my consideration.

8. To adjudicate the issue involved, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act , which read as under:

“39. Removal from office.

(1) The Commissioner may, -

(i) remove from office any member or any Sarpanch or Upa- Sarpanch who has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct, of of neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty, or is persistently remiss in the discharge thereof. A Sarpanch or an Upa-Sarpanch so removed may at the discretion of the Commissioner also be removed from the panchayat; or (ii) remove from office the member, Sarpanch or, as the case may be Upa-Sarpanch, if not less than twenty per cent of the total number of voters in the village who have paid all dues of the panchayat regarding taxes on buildings and lands and water charges, make a complaint that the annual