Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Waghji Bhivaji Bhalerao, a resident of Gram Panchayat Khandala, filed a disqualification application under Section 14(1)(j-5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Collector, seeking disqualification of respondent no.2, Eknath alias Natha Laxman Kad, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Savargaon Barde in 2017. The ground for disqualification was that respondent no.2 did not have a toilet facility in his house. The Collector, by order dated 16.08.2018, disqualified respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'person aggrieved' under Section 16(2) of the Act, as he was not a voter or qualified to be a member of Gram Panchayat Savargaon Barde. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court framed the issue of whether a person not qualified to vote or get elected under Section 13 of the Act can be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Section 16(2). The court examined the scheme of the Act, noting that Section 13 prescribes qualifications for being a voter and a member, and Section 16(2) allows any 'person aggrieved' to challenge the election of a disqualified candidate. The court held that the phrase 'person aggrieved' must be construed in the context of the Act, and only a person who is a voter in the constituency or qualified to be a member can be said to be aggrieved. Since the petitioner was a resident of a different Gram Panchayat and not a voter in Savargaon Barde, he lacked locus standi. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Divisional Commissioner's order.
Headnote
A) Locus Standi - Person Aggrieved - Disqualification Proceedings - Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - A person who is not qualified to vote or get elected under Section 13 of the Act cannot be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Section 16(2) to seek disqualification of an elected member. The court held that only a person who is a voter in the Gram Panchayat constituency or a person qualified to be a member can be said to be aggrieved by the election of a disqualified candidate. (Paras 1, 6-7) B) Disqualification - Toilet Facility - Section 14(1)(j-5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The Collector disqualified the respondent no.2 for not having a toilet facility in his house. However, the appeal was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order, holding that the petitioner, being a resident of a different Gram Panchayat, was not a person aggrieved. (Paras 2-3, 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who is not qualified to vote or get elected under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 can be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Section 16(2) of the said Act to initiate disqualification proceedings against an elected member.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Divisional Commissioner that the petitioner was not a 'person aggrieved' under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and thus lacked locus standi to file the disqualification application.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Person aggrieved
- Disqualification of elected member
- Section 14(1)(j-5)
- Section 16(2)
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
