Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Raju s/o Mansaram Pawar and his wife Yashoda w/o Raju Pawar, were elected members of the Village Panchayat, Jamdighat, in 2017. Petitioner No.1 was also elected as UpSarpanch. Respondent No.3, Raju s/o Ramchandra Pawar, filed a complaint before the District Collector on 30.01.2019 alleging that petitioner No.1 had encroached upon forest land and conducted agricultural activities, the yield of which was enjoyed by both petitioners. It was further alleged that in 2010, Crime No.12/2010 was registered against petitioner No.1 under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and that this fact was suppressed in his nomination form. The District Collector, by order dated 02.08.2019, disqualified both petitioners under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, by order dated 12.12.2019, sustained the disqualification. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners contended that registration of a crime under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act does not ipso facto disqualify a member, and that no offence was registered against the wife. They argued that the criminal case was pending for 10 years and that until conviction, disqualification under Section 14(1)(j3) is not attracted. The court examined the provisions of Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which disqualifies a person who has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The court noted that the provision requires a conviction, not merely registration of an FIR. Since the criminal case against petitioner No.1 was still pending and there was no conviction, the disqualification could not be sustained. Regarding petitioner No.2, the wife, the court observed that there was no criminal case registered against her, and she could not be disqualified solely on the ground of her husband's alleged encroachment. The court held that the orders of disqualification were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioners were restored to their positions as members of the Village Panchayat.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(1)(j3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Requirement of Conviction - Mere registration of a criminal case under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, does not constitute a disqualification under Section 14(1)(j3) as the provision requires conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The court held that until the petitioner is convicted, the disqualification cannot be sustained. (Paras 6-8) B) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(1)(j3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Vicarious Liability - A wife cannot be disqualified solely on the ground that her husband has allegedly encroached upon forest land, in the absence of any criminal case or independent evidence against her. The court held that the wife's disqualification is unsustainable. (Paras 6-8) C) Forest Law - Offences under Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 26(1)(e) and (f) - Moral Turpitude - The court observed that the offence under Section 26(1)(e) and (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, may not necessarily involve moral turpitude, and in any case, disqualification under Section 14(1)(j3) requires a conviction. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, based on registration of a criminal case under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and alleged encroachment, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 passed by the District Collector and dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are restored to their positions as members of the Village Panchayat, Jamdighat.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act requires conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude
- not mere registration of FIR
- Registration of crime under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act
- 1927 does not ipso facto disqualify a member
- Wife cannot be disqualified solely on ground of husband's alleged encroachment without independent evidence
