Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Uttam H. Jadhav, was an elected member of the Gram Panchayat of Shinde, Taluka Nasik, District Nasik. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 initiated disqualification proceedings against him under Section 16 read with Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, alleging that he failed to pay taxes due to the Panchayat within three months of service of a bill. Two bills were involved: one dated 1st June 2011 for Rs.1260 served on Vasant H. Jadhav, the Petitioner's real brother, and another served on Dhanaji Sampat Jadhav in the name of Devram Vithoba Jadhav, claimed to be the Petitioner's grandfather. The Petitioner contended that he was not a member of a joint family with Vasant Jadhav and that Devram Jadhav was not his grandfather. The Collector, by order dated 28th November 2011, held that the Petitioner and Vasant Jadhav constituted a joint family and that Devram Jadhav was the Petitioner's paternal grandfather, but did not record a specific finding that the Petitioner and Devram Jadhav or Dhanaji Jadhav formed a joint family. The Petitioner's appeal to the Additional Divisional Commissioner was dismissed on 21st January 2012. The High Court noted that the bill served on Vasant Jadhav was paid on 9th September 2011, before the Collector's order. The Court held that for disqualification under Section 16 read with Section 14(h), the tax must be due from the member or his joint family. The Collector failed to record a specific finding that the Petitioner and the persons on whom the bills were served constituted a joint family. Mere relationship does not establish a joint family. The Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the disqualification.
Headnote
A) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Disqualification of Member - Section 16 r/w Section 14(h) - Tax Default - For disqualification under Section 16 read with Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the tax or fees must be due from the member or his joint family. Mere service of bill on a relative, without a finding that the member and the relative constitute a joint family, is insufficient to attract disqualification. The Collector must record a specific finding of joint family. (Paras 4-6) B) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Disqualification of Member - Section 16 r/w Section 14(h) - Payment of Tax - If the tax amount is paid before the disqualification proceedings are concluded, the disqualification may not be sustained. In this case, the bill served on the brother was paid on 9th September 2011, before the Collector's order dated 28th November 2011. (Paras 4-6) C) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Disqualification of Member - Section 16 r/w Section 14(h) - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the party alleging disqualification to prove that the member and the person on whom the bill was served constitute a joint family. Mere relationship, such as brother or grandfather, does not create a presumption of joint family. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Gram Panchayat member can be disqualified under Section 16 read with Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for non-payment of tax when the tax bill was served on his brother and grandfather, without proof that they constituted a joint family with the member
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned judgment and order dated 21st January 2012 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik and the order dated 28th November 2011 passed by the Collector, Nasik. The disqualification of the Petitioner was set aside.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 16 r/w Section 14(h) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958 requires tax bill to be served on the member or his joint family
- mere relationship without proof of joint family is insufficient
- payment of tax before disqualification proceedings may cure default
