Bombay High Court
Sau Nandalal Ramesh Wakude vs Shivprasad S/O Waman Wakude & Others on 11 March, 2015
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande
1
wp7294.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7294 of 2014
Sau. Nandabai Ramesh Wakude,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation - Sarpanch,
Kenwad, R/o Kenwad,
Tq.Risod, Distt. Washim. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Shivprasad s/o Waman Wakude,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation - Agricultural,
R/o Kenwad, Tq. Risod,
Distt. Washim.
2. Gram Panchayat Kenwad,
through Secretary,
Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim.
3. Additional Collector,
Collector Office, Washim,
Distt. Washim.
4. Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati. ... Respondents
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri J.C. Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms Roma Bondade, Advocate, holding for Shri Mangesh Bute,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Shri Neeraj Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 11th March, 2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 ::: 2 wp7294.14.odt Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner was disqualified under the provision of Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 by an order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Washim, in Case No.BVP/Kenwad/48/2012, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner has availed the benefits on two occasions under the Gharkul Scheme sponsored by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government and implemented through the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Risod. This order was the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No.71/BVP 16(2)/Kenwad/2013-14 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, who has dismissed it on 26-11-2014.
Hence, this petition by the petitioner, who was holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Risod.
3. Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 ::: 3 wp7294.14.odt being relevant, is reproduced below :
"14. Disqualifications.- (1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat continue as such, who-
(g) 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, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat."
In terms of the aforesaid provision, no person shall be a member of a Panchayat continue as such, 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, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. The "Panchayat" is defined under Section 2(14) of the said Act to mean a Panchayat established or deemed to have been established under the said Act. The provision is, therefore, attracted only in the cases where a member of such Panchayat is proved to have directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any share or interest in any work done by the order of such Panchayat.
4. In the present case, it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner has taken the benefits on two occasions under the Gharkul ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 ::: 4 wp7294.14.odt Scheme sponsored by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government and implemented through the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Risod. It is also not disputed that the name of the husband of the petitioner was included in the list of eligible persons prepared by the "Panchayat", as defined under Section 2(14) of the said Act. In the light of this factual position, the question is whether the petitioner can be disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act?
5. The Gharkul Scheme is not the Scheme, which is sponsored or implemented by the "Panchayat", as defined under Section 2(14) of the said Act. It is the Scheme prepared by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government. The Scheme is being implemented through the Block Development Officer of the "Panchayat Samiti", constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which is an independent statutory authority. The "Panchayat" of which the petitioner was the Sarpanch, is constituted under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and not under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It has nothing to do with such Scheme, except to prepare the list of persons ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 ::: 5 wp7294.14.odt eligible to get the benefits under the Scheme, and to forward it to the Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. It is, therefore, not the work done by or under the orders passed by the "Panchayat", as defined under Section 2(14) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The provision of disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act is, therefore, not attracted. The authorities below have committed an error in holding that the petitioner is disqualified under the said provision to occupy the post of Sarpanch. The orders impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained and the same need to be quashed and set aside.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Washim, in Case No.BVP/Kenwad/48/2012, and the order dated26-11-2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Appeal No.71/BVP 16(2)/Kenwad/2013-14, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is restored back to the position of Sarpanch.
::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 ::: 6wp7294.14.odt
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Judge Lanjewar ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2015 00:01:11 :::