Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Aakash Babaso Shinge, a member of the Gram Panchayat of Nej, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur, was disqualified by the Collector under Section 14(1)(j-3) read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, on the ground that he had carried out an encroachment on government land (Gram Panchayat property bearing no. 993). The complaint alleged that the petitioner's father had constructed a shop named 'Vishal Hair Dressers' on the said land. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 2nd August 2023. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner contended that he was residing separately from his father, as evidenced by a separate ration card issued on 8th November 2018 in his name along with his wife and two minor children, and a partition deed executed between his father, brother, and himself. He argued that the encroachment, if any, was by his father and not by him, and therefore he could not be disqualified. The respondents, including the Gramsevak Officer and the complainant, opposed the petition. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) and held that the disqualification applies only when the member himself carries out or causes the encroachment. The court noted that the authorities had ignored the petitioner's evidence of separate residence and had not considered the partition deed or the ration card. The court found that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind and were unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, and quashed the disqualification of the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the Gram Panchayat, if not already reinstated.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Member - Encroachment by Relative - Section 14(1)(j-3) read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - The petitioner, a Gram Panchayat member, was disqualified for encroachment on government land allegedly by his father. The court held that disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) requires the member to personally carry out or cause the encroachment; vicarious liability for a relative's act is not contemplated. The petitioner's separate residence, supported by a ration card and partition deed, was ignored by the authorities. The impugned orders were set aside, and the disqualification was quashed. (Paras 1-10) B) Panchayat Law - Appellate Authority - Duty to Consider Evidence - Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - The Additional Commissioner, as appellate authority, failed to consider the petitioner's evidence of separate residence, including a ration card and partition deed. The court held that the appellate authority must examine all relevant material before confirming disqualification. The order was set aside for non-application of mind. (Paras 5-10) C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors of subordinate tribunals where they acted without jurisdiction or in disregard of legal principles. The court found that the Collector and Additional Commissioner acted illegally by disqualifying the petitioner without evidence of his personal encroachment. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a member of a Gram Panchayat can be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, for an encroachment allegedly committed by his father, when the member resides separately and has no personal involvement in the encroachment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 2nd August 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order of the Collector disqualifying the petitioner, and quashed the disqualification. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the Gram Panchayat, if not already reinstated.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability not applicable for disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
- Encroachment must be by the member personally
- Separate residence and ration card are relevant evidence
- Appellate authority must consider all evidence
- High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
