Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shyam Madhavrao Mohod and Sau. Supriya Shyam Mohod, were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat, Sindhi (Meghe) in 2014, and petitioner No.2 was elected as Sarpanch in August 2016. Respondent No.6, Arun Devidasji Yesankar, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had illegally leased out one room of their house to the Gram Panchayat for an Anganwadi and were receiving monetary benefits, thereby being disqualified under Section 14(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer conducted a preliminary enquiry and reported that the room was given with the intention of service and no wrongful gain was involved. Simultaneously, respondent No.6 filed a petition before the Additional Collector under Section 16 read with Section 14(f) and (g) seeking disqualification. The Additional Collector held the petitioners disqualified, and the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 4th September 2017. The undisputed facts revealed that the room was owned by the mother of petitioner No.1 and had been leased out for Anganwadi since prior to 2009, with rent increasing from Rs.200 to Rs.1,000 per month. The petitioners challenged the orders by way of a writ petition. The High Court observed that the lease was entered into before the petitioners became members, and the petitioners themselves were not parties to the lease. The court held that the disqualification under Section 14(f) and (g) requires that the member has a direct or indirect interest in a contract or employment with the panchayat, which was not established. The court quashed the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(f) and (g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Lease of Property - The petitioners were disqualified by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner for having an interest in a contract with the Gram Panchayat by leasing a room owned by petitioner No.1's mother for Anganwadi. The High Court held that the lease was entered into prior to the petitioners becoming members, and the petitioners themselves were not parties to the lease. The disqualification provisions require that the member has a direct or indirect interest in a contract with the panchayat, which was not established. The court quashed the disqualification orders. (Paras 1-5) B) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(f) and (g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Interpretation - The court interpreted that the disqualification under Section 14(f) and (g) applies only if the member has a subsisting interest in a contract or employment with the panchayat at the time of or after becoming a member. A pre-existing lease by a family member does not disqualify the member unless the member themselves entered into the contract. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are disqualified under Section 14(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act for leasing out a room owned by the mother of petitioner No.1 to the Gram Panchayat for Anganwadi, receiving rent.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(f) and (g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act requires that the member has a direct or indirect interest in a contract or employment with the panchayat
- lease of property by a family member prior to election does not attract disqualification
- the lease must be entered into by the member themselves or after becoming a member.
