Case Note & Summary
These three writ petitions challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, which set aside the District Collector's order disqualifying three elected members of Gram Panchayat Shiraswadi under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The elections were held on 15.01.2021, results declared on 29.01.2021. Petitioner, himself an elected member, filed disqualification applications on 08.03.2021 alleging that the respondents (elected members) failed to submit detailed election expense affidavits within the mandatory 30-day period, i.e., by 01.03.2021. The Collector allowed the applications on 12.10.2021, disqualifying the members. The members appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who on 23.11.2021 set aside the disqualification, holding that the affidavits were filed though delayed. Petitioner contested this order on multiple grounds: first, that filing of the affidavit in prescribed form (Annexure I and III to the 1995 Notification) was mandatory and non-compliance attracted automatic disqualification; second, that the Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction after a State Election Commission notification dated 07.09.2021 vested appellate power in the Commission itself; third, that the Commissioner ignored Tahsildar's reports confirming that no proper affidavit was filed within time; fourth, that the distinction between 'disqualification' under Section 14B and 'vacancy' under Section 16 was overlooked. The matter was heard by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, who reserved judgment on 07.02.2023 and pronounced it on 05.06.2023. The judgment text provided does not include the final decision or reasoning, rendering it impossible to state the outcome.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Sections 14B, 16(2) - Disqualification for Non-Filing of Election Expense Affidavit - Mandatory Requirement - Petitioner sought disqualification of elected members for failure to submit detailed election expense affidavit within 30 days of election result as per Section 14B and 1995 Notification, leading to Collector's order disqualifying them; Divisional Commissioner set aside order. (Paras 2.3, 3.1, 3.6)
B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Sections 14B and 16(2) - Distinction between Disqualification and Vacancy - Petitioner argued that disqualification under Section 14B does not automatically create a vacancy under Section 16; separate determination required. (Paras 3.9, 3.10)
C) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Jurisdiction - Notification dated 07.09.2021 - State Election Commission notification divested Divisional Commissioner of appellate jurisdiction under Section 14B; impugned order challenged as without jurisdiction. (Paras 2.10, 2.12)
D) Evidence - Reports of Tahsildar - Findings of non-filing timely affidavits - Divisional Commissioner allegedly ignored Tahsildar's reports confirming non-submission, which were crucial for disqualification. (Paras 2.5, 2.8, 3.3-3.5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's disqualification order was valid, considering mandatory filing of election expenses, jurisdiction due to SEC notification, and the distinction between disqualification and vacancy under the Act
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Mandatory filing of election expenses affidavit under Section 14B and 1995 Notification
- distinction between disqualification under Section 14B and vacancy under Section 16
- jurisdiction of Divisional Commissioner after State Election Commission Notification dated 07.09.2021
- strict compliance with prescribed forms for election expenses
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 130
Writ Petition No. 8585 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 8588 of 2021
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.5; Mr. Sachindra Shetye for Respondent No.6
State of Maharashtra through its officers, Sima Namdev Gawade, Sangita Kondiba Chitalkar, Kiran Lalasaheb Shinde (Respondent No.5 in respective petitions), and Maharashtra State Election Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of Divisional Commissioner setting aside the District Collector's order disqualifying elected members for failure to file election expense affidavits within the statutory period.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks to set aside the Divisional Commissioner's order and restore the Collector's disqualification of respondent No.5 in each petition.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.5 failed to submit detailed election expense affidavit within 30 days of election result, violating Section 14B of the Act and the State Election Commission's notification.
Previous Decisions
District Collector disqualified the elected members on 12.10.2021. Divisional Commissioner allowed their appeal and set aside the disqualification on 23.11.2021.
Issues
Whether the Divisional Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's disqualification was valid, given the mandatory requirement under Section 14B and the 1995 Notification
Whether the State Election Commission Notification dated 07.09.2021 divested the Divisional Commissioner of appellate jurisdiction under the Act
Whether the distinction between disqualification (Section 14B) and vacancy (Section 16) was correctly appreciated
Whether the Tahsildar's reports confirming non-submission were properly considered
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent No.5 failed to lodge election expenses as required, liable to disqualification under Section 14B.
Respondent No.5 was actively involved in events and gave excuses for non-submission; submitted photocopy and original later, allegedly backdated.
Tahsildar reports unequivocally stated that proper documents were not submitted within the deadline.
The 1995 Notification mandatorily requires abstract statement and affidavit in prescribed forms, which were not filed.
Day-to-day expenses were submitted collectively on 15.02.2021 instead of daily, violating the rules.
The word 'disqualification' in Section 14B is distinct from 'vacancy' in Section 16, and incurring disqualification does not automatically create a vacancy.
The impugned order is without jurisdiction as the SEC notification of 07.09.2021 had transferred appellate power from Divisional Commissioner to the Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
On 15.01.2021, election of member of Gram Panchayat Shiraswadi, Tal. Haveli, District Pune was held.
These disqualification Applications were filed on the principal ground that all three i.e. Respondent No.5 failed to lodge the detailed Affidavit of election expenses within 30 days from the date of announcement of the result of the election i.e. on or before 01.03.2021.
the Divisional Commissioner, Pune passed a reasoned order and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Pune after hearing the parties.
Petitioner has impugned the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune setting aside the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the District Collector, Pune on the ground that under the State Election Commission Notification dated 03.08.2016 it is mandatory to give account of the election expenses within 30 days from the date of announcement of result of election which has not been given by Respondent No.5 to the Competent Authority.
Procedural History
Election held on 15.01.2021; votes counted on 18.01.2021; result declared on 29.01.2021; disqualification applications filed by petitioner on 08.03.2021; replies by respondents on 17.08.2021; Tahsildar's letter dated 06.09.2021 to Collector stating no entry of election expense affidavit; Collector passed disqualification orders on 12.10.2021; respondents filed appeals before Divisional Commissioner; petitioner filed reply in appeals on 17.11.2021; Tahsildar's letter dated 22.11.2021 to Commissioner confirming no filing; Divisional Commissioner passed impugned order on 23.11.2021 setting aside disqualification; during pendency, SEC notification dated 07.09.2021 empowered Commission to hear appeals under Section 14B.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 14B, 16, 16(2)
