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 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad on 30 July 2016, 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 disqualifying them under Section 14(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report on 10 August 2016 stating that the room was given for Anganwadi with the intention of service to needy students and there was no element of wrongful gain. Simultaneously, respondent No.6 filed a petition under Section 16 read with Section 14(f) and (g) before the Additional Collector, who held the petitioners disqualified. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed on 4 September 2017. The undisputed facts revealed that the room was owned by the mother of petitioner No.1 and had been leased for Anganwadi since before 2009, with rent increasing from Rs.200 to Rs.1,000 per month over time. The High Court considered whether the petitioners were disqualified under Section 14(f) and (g). The court noted that the transaction was not for personal gain but for public service, and the rent was nominal without profit. The court held that the ingredients of Section 14(f) and (g) were not satisfied, as there was no conflict of interest or personal gain. The impugned orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner were quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(f) and (g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Leasing of Property - The petitioners leased a room owned by petitioner No.1's mother to the Gram Panchayat for Anganwadi at a nominal rent. The Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner disqualified them under Section 14(f) and (g) for having interest in a contract with the Gram Panchayat. The High Court held that the transaction was not for personal gain but for public service, and the rent was nominal without profit motive. The disqualification was quashed as the ingredients of Section 14(f) and (g) were not satisfied. (Paras 1-5) B) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification - Section 14(f) and (g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Interpretation - The court interpreted that disqualification under these provisions requires a direct or indirect interest in a contract with the Gram Panchayat that is adverse to the interests of the Panchayat or for personal gain. Since the lease was for a public purpose (Anganwadi) and the rent was minimal, there was no conflict of interest or personal gain. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are disqualified under Section 14(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act for leasing a room to the Gram Panchayat for Anganwadi and receiving rent.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned 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 personal gain or conflict of interest
- leasing of property to Gram Panchayat for public purpose without profit does not attract disqualification
