Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mankarna w/o Nagorao Kale, was elected as a member of Grampanchayat Kakad Dabha in January 2021 and subsequently elected as Sarpanch from the Scheduled Tribe category on 10.02.2021. On 06.09.2021, respondent no.5, Vitthal Baliram Kale, filed a complaint before the District Collector, Hingoli, seeking her disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, alleging that she had issued payment of Rs.19,500/- to her husband for contracted work, which is prohibited. The District Collector, after considering the complaint, the petitioner's written say, and documents from the Grampanchayat, passed an order on 02.03.2022 disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2022. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging both orders. The legal issue was whether the payment to the husband constitutes an interest in contract under Section 14(1)(g). The petitioner argued that she did not personally gain and that the payment was for legitimate work. The respondents contended that the provision is clear and the payment to a spouse falls within its ambit. The court analyzed the language of Section 14(1)(g) and held that the provision disqualifies any member who has any share or interest in any contract or employment with the panchayat. The court noted that the payment was made to the petitioner's husband, and the petitioner, as Sarpanch, was instrumental in issuing the payment. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner did not benefit personally, stating that the disqualification is based on the existence of an interest, not on actual gain. The court upheld the disqualification orders, finding no error in the decisions of the District Collector and Additional Commissioner. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Local Self-Government - Disqualification of Member - Interest in Contract - Section 14(1)(g) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The petitioner, a Sarpanch, issued payment of Rs.19,500/- to her husband for work contracted by the Grampanchayat. The court held that such payment constitutes an interest in contract within the meaning of Section 14(1)(g), as the provision prohibits any member from having any share or interest in any contract or employment with the panchayat. The fact that the payment was made to the spouse, not directly to the member, does not absolve the disqualification, as the provision is intended to prevent conflicts of interest. The court upheld the disqualification orders passed by the District Collector and Additional Commissioner. (Paras 1-10) B) Local Self-Government - Disqualification - Strict Interpretation - Section 14(1)(g) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The court interpreted the disqualification provision strictly, noting that the language of Section 14(1)(g) is clear and unambiguous. The provision disqualifies a member who has any share or interest in any contract or employment with the panchayat. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner did not personally gain, as the disqualification is based on the existence of an interest, not on actual pecuniary benefit. The court emphasized that the object of the provision is to ensure that members do not have conflicting interests that could compromise their duty. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as a member and Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, is disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for having issued payment of Rs.19,500/- to her husband for contracted work.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of disqualification passed by the District Collector and Additional Commissioner are upheld.
Law Points
- Disqualification of elected member
- Interest in contract
- Payment to spouse
- Section 14(1)(g) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
- Strict interpretation of disqualification provisions
- No requirement of pecuniary gain to member
