Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mandabai Zinjurde, was the directly elected Sarpanch of Village Mahalgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. Respondent No.4, Santosh Kale, filed a dispute before the District Collector (respondent No.2) seeking a declaration that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for failing to pay tax and fees amounting to Rs.1209/- payable to the Panchayat. The Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.1) concurrently held that the petitioner was disqualified. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that to attract disqualification under Section 14(1)(h), three conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be dues to the Panchayat, (ii) a demand bill must be served upon the member, and (iii) the member must fail to pay within three months from the date of demand. The petitioner contended that none of these conditions were fulfilled, as there was no material to show that any demand bill was served upon her. The respondent No.4 attempted to show that a cheque issued by the petitioner's husband for clearing the dues was dishonored, but this did not establish service of a demand notice. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of the authorities were unsustainable because there was no evidence of any demand bill being served upon the petitioner. The court emphasized that strict compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 14(1)(h) is mandatory. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and set aside the disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 14(1)(h) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Requirement of Demand Notice - The disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) requires three conditions: existence of dues, service of a bill demanding payment, and failure to pay within three months from the date of demand. In the absence of any material showing that a demand bill was served upon the petitioner, the concurrent findings of the Collector and Additional Divisional Commissioner are unsustainable. Held that the disqualification is invalid (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch under Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is valid when no demand notice was served upon her.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of the respondent No.2 - Collector and respondent No.1 - Additional Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch is set aside.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959 requires three conditions: existence of dues
- service of demand bill
- and failure to pay within three months
- absence of demand notice renders disqualification invalid
- strict compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory.
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (11) 15
WRIT PETITION NO.6091 OF 2020
Mr. Ravindra V. Gore (for Petitioner), Mr. D.R. Kale (GP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2), Mr. A.R. Devkate (for respondent No.3), Mr. K.C. Sant (for respondent No. 4)
Mandabai W/o. Bhausaheb Zinjurde
The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad; The District Collector, Aurangabad; Gramsevak, Grampanchayat, Mahalgaon; Santosh Sankar Kale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of disqualification under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the orders of the Collector and Additional Divisional Commissioner declaring her disqualified as Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was declared disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act for alleged non-payment of tax and fees of Rs.1209/- to the Panchayat, without any demand notice being served.
Previous Decisions
The District Collector (respondent No.2) and the Additional Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.1) concurrently held that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.
Issues
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is valid when no demand notice was served upon her.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that three conditions must be satisfied for disqualification under Section 14(1)(h): existence of dues, service of demand bill, and failure to pay within three months; none were fulfilled.
Petitioner relied on Suvarna Prakash Patil Vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and Ors.; 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 1062 and Shaukat Ali Mohammad Hussain Vs. Shaikh Ayub and Ors.; 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 658.
Respondent No.4 attempted to show that a cheque issued by petitioner's husband for clearing dues was dishonored, but no demand notice was proved.
Ratio Decidendi
For disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, three conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be dues to the Panchayat, (ii) a demand bill must be served upon the member, and (iii) the member fails to pay within three months from the date of demand. In the absence of any material showing service of a demand bill, the disqualification is invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
In order to attract the disqualification pursuant to a provision contained in Section 14 (1)(h) three requisites have to be complied, firstly, that there should be some dues to the Panchayat, secondly, there is demand for such dues by serving the Member a bill, and thirdly, the Member fails to pay the dues within three months from the date of demand.
Since none of these three conditions have been fulfilled, there was no question of petitioner being disqualified by resorting to this provision.
Procedural History
Respondent No.4 filed a dispute before the District Collector (respondent No.2) seeking declaration of disqualification of petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The Collector allowed the dispute. Petitioner appealed to the Additional Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.1), who dismissed the appeal. Petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 14(1)(h), Section 16
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
