Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an order dated 22 April 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, in Village Panchayat Appeal No. 100 of 2024, which set aside the Additional District Collector's order in Village Panchayat Dispute Application No. 43 of 2023 and declared the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of member of Village Panchayat, Sonambe, for the remaining term under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The petitioner, who had been elected as a member in 2021 and later as Sarpanch, challenged the Commissioner's order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6362 of 2025. The respondents had alleged that the petitioner misappropriated panchayat funds by receiving Rs.1,50,000 vide cheque No. 812761 dated 13 July 2018 and Rs.20,000 vide cheque No. 812829 dated 13 August 2019, thereby incurring disqualification. The District Collector had rejected the dispute application on the ground that the alleged transactions pertained to the previous term 2014-2019 and therefore could not disqualify the petitioner in the current term. The Divisional Commissioner reversed that decision, finding clear evidence of receipt and absence of explanation. The petitioner contended before the High Court that Section 14(1)(g) requires a share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or any contract with, by or on behalf of the Panchayat, and that mere credit of amounts to the petitioner's account did not satisfy this requirement. The petitioner also argued that the funds were paid during the previous term and that the alleged misconduct, if any, fell under Section 39 of the Act, which prescribes a different removal procedure. The respondents maintained that a clear case of misappropriation was made out, that no explanation was offered for the payments, and that the audit report established a nexus between the Rs.20,000 payment and construction of a small stream. The court examined the material on record, including reports from the Village Officer, general cash book entries, and bank statements of the panchayat and the petitioner. The records showed that the petitioner was the payee of the two cheques drawn on the panchayat's account and that the amounts were credited to the petitioner's bank account and subsequently withdrawn. However, the cash book did not record the purpose of the Rs.1,50,000 payment, and the audit report indicated the Rs.20,000 was for construction of a small stream. The judgment extract provided ends at paragraph 19, before the court's final analysis and operative order. Thus, the final decision on the writ petition is not contained in the available text. The court's initial examination focused on whether the evidence established the essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(g) and whether the Divisional Commissioner correctly reversed the District Collector's order.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(1)(g) - Disqualification requires a share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or any contract with, by or on behalf of the Panchayat; mere receipt or credit of funds to a member's account unconnected to such work or contract is insufficient - Petitioner contended that Respondent's dispute did not allege any specific work or contract and that cash book entries omitted the purpose of payments; Court noted that for applicability of Section 14(1)(g), primary fact of share/interest in any such work or contract must first be established (Paras 6-7, 17-19). B) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - Distinction Between Disqualification and Removal - Sections 14(1)(g) and 39 - Separate remedies with distinct procedures; removal for misconduct under Section 39 cannot be substituted for disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) - Petitioner argued that alleged misappropriation, if at all, fell under Section 39, which prescribes a different procedure; Court considered the submissions on the distinct spheres of these provisions (Para 11). C) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - Statutory Appeal - Section 16 - Divisional Commissioner's power to reverse District Collector's order - Divisional Commissioner allowed appeal and declared petitioner disqualified for remaining term, reversing District Collector's rejection based on previous-term transactions - Court examined bank records, cash book entries and audit report to assess whether the impugned order correctly applied Section 14(1)(g) (Paras 3.6-3.8, 17-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether mere receipt of Village Panchayat funds by an elected member, without proof of any share or interest in a work done by order of the Panchayat or contract with/by/on behalf of the Panchayat, constitutes disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959; and whether disqualification can be based on transactions during a previous term of the Panchayat.
Law Points
- Section 14(1)(g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1959 requires share or interest in work done by order of Panchayat or contract with/by/on behalf of Panchayat
- mere credit or receipt of funds into member's account does not by itself constitute disqualification
- absence of record of purpose for payment undermines disqualification
- disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) is distinct from removal for misconduct under Section 39 with different procedure
- acts during previous term may not disqualify current term unless nexus to current office
