Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, which allowed appeals filed by respondent No.6 and set aside orders of the Additional Collector, Nagpur. The Additional Collector had disqualified respondent No.6 as sarpanch/upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat Yenikoni under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Petitioners, original complainants, alleged that respondent No.6 directly or indirectly obtained a water supply contract under the Jal Jivan Mission through the proprietary concern M/s. Shriram Constructions and influenced gram panchayat resolutions, thereby incurring disqualification. The background facts showed that general elections were held in 2019, electing respondent No.6 as sarpanch/upsarpanch. A gram panchayat meeting dated 26/04/2019 proposed acquiring a bore-well/well under a water scarcity scheme; the sarpanch proposed a resolution for field survey no.25 belonging to her, allegedly in collusion with the upsarpanch. Under the Jal Jivan Mission, a work amounting to Rs.1,82,99,313/- was awarded to M/s. Shriram Constructions, owned by Manish Fuke, by a work order dated 15/12/2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. There was also an allegation of a godown construction under the District Planning Committee worth approximately Rs.60,00,000/- that was not implemented. Petitioners filed complaints before the Additional Collector under Section 16 of the Act, which were allowed, but the Additional Commissioner subsequently quashed those orders on appeal. The core legal issues were whether Section 14(1)(g) could be invoked when the work order was issued by the Zilla Parishad under a Central/State Government scheme without any order or financial contribution from the gram panchayat, and whether the Additional Commissioner erred by applying a narrow interpretation and passing a cryptic order. Petitioners argued for a wide and broad construction of Section 14(1)(g), contending that direct or indirect involvement in the scheme attracted disqualification. The State and respondent No.6 submitted that the scheme was funded by the Central and State Governments in equal shares, with no financial role of the gram panchayat; the only role was maintenance after implementation, and no work order was issued by the panchayat. The court analyzed Section 14(1)(g), noting that its wording is widely worded and prohibits a member from continuing if directly or indirectly having any share or interest in work done by order of the panchayat. However, the court emphasized that the work must be done by order of the panchayat. In the present matter, admittedly no work order was issued by Gram Panchayat Yenikoni. The scheme was introduced by the Central/State Government under the Drinking Water Security and Functional Household Tap Connections, with Clause 6.3 assigning only maintenance and banking functions to the Village Water and Sanitation Committee. The court observed that the work order was issued by the Zilla Parishad, and there was no positive material showing a direct or indirect interest in panchayat work. The provided text does not include the final operative order; however, the court's analysis indicated that the disqualification was not established under Section 14(1)(g) because the work was not done by order of the panchayat. The writ petitions were accordingly considered on merits, but the final relief granted is not reproduced in the extract.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Panchayat Member - Direct or Indirect Interest in Panchayat Works - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Section 14(1)(g) - Section 14(1)(g) disqualifies a person from continuing as panchayat member if directly or indirectly, by himself or partner, has any share or interest in any work done by order of the panchayat. The complaint alleged that respondent No.6, as sarpanch/upsarpanch, obtained a Jal Jivan Mission contract through a proprietary concern and influenced a gram panchayat resolution for a bore-well from own field. The court noted the wording of clause (g) is widely worded. (Paras 19-23) B) Administrative Law - Appellate Order Scrutiny - Cryptic Order by Additional Commissioner - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Section 16 - The petitioners contended that the Additional Commissioner passed a cryptic order ignoring the Additional Collector's reasons and gave narrow meaning to Section 14. The court was called upon to assess whether the appellate authority erred in setting aside disqualification; the rival contentions were considered. (Paras 7-9, 18) C) Government Contracts - Jal Jivan Mission Scheme - Work Order by Zilla Parishad Not by Panchayat - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Section 14(1)(g) - The Government Resolution dated 04/09/2020 and Jal Jivan Mission scheme were introduced by the Central/State Government to provide household tap connections. The work order was issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, and no work order was issued by Gram Panchayat Yenikoni. The court observed that the scheme's funding was Central/State with no financial contribution from the gram panchayat and only maintenance role for the panchayat. (Paras 20, 24) D) Evidence - Pleadings and Proof for Disqualification - Positive Material Required - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Section 14(1)(g) - Respondent No.6 argued that complaints lacked proper pleadings and no cause of action because they did not mention use of gram panchayat funds. Relying on precedents, it was submitted that disqualification for purity of administration must be established by sufficient material. The court's analysis required positive material to attract disqualification. (Paras 11, 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No.6, as sarpanch/upsarpanch, incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act by having direct or indirect interest in a Jal Jivan Mission work order issued by the Zilla Parishad; and whether the Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the Additional Collector's disqualification orders.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) requires direct or indirect share or interest in work done by order of the panchayat
- Scope of clause (g) is wide but must be established by positive material
- Work order issued by Zilla Parishad under Central/State scheme without panchayat order does not attract disqualification
- Pleadings must show cause of action and funds of panchayat used
