Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Savita Devidas Adhane, was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Viramgaon. On 04.08.2018, the District Collector, Aurangabad, disqualified her under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, on two grounds: (i) she failed to recover an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- allegedly due from her husband, Sanjay Adhane (Respondent No. 4), who had taken a loan from the Gram Panchayat for a biogas plant but did not repay it; and (ii) she did not take action against her husband for constructing a compound wall allegedly on Panchayat land. The Collector held that her inaction amounted to wilful omission causing loss to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 04.10.2018 without addressing the merits. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of Section 14(1)(j-3), which requires that the Sarpanch has by wilful omission or commission caused any loss to the Gram Panchayat. The Court noted that the Collector's order did not record any finding that the petitioner's omission was wilful or that it caused any actual loss to the Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat itself had not taken any steps to recover the amount from the husband, and there was no evidence that the petitioner had the authority to unilaterally recover the amount. Regarding the compound wall, the Court observed that the Tahsildar had already initiated proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and the petitioner could not be faulted for not taking action when the matter was sub judice. The Court also found that the appellate order was cryptic and did not consider the grounds raised. Consequently, the Court quashed both the Collector's order and the appellate order, reinstated the petitioner as Sarpanch, and directed that she be allowed to function with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 14(1)(j-3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Wilful Omission or Commission Causing Loss - The disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) requires that the Sarpanch has by wilful omission or commission caused any loss to the Gram Panchayat. Mere non-compliance with administrative directions or failure to recover amounts from a relative, without proof of actual loss to the Panchayat, does not attract this provision. The quasi-judicial authority must record a finding of loss and the wilful nature of the act. (Paras 10-14) B) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 14(1)(j-3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Appellate Order - Duty to Consider All Grounds - The appellate authority under Section 14(5) must consider all grounds raised in the appeal and pass a reasoned order. Dismissing the appeal without addressing the merits of the challenge renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 15-16) C) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 14(1)(j-3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Recovery of Dues from Relative - A Sarpanch cannot be disqualified for failure to recover amounts due from her husband when the Gram Panchayat itself has not taken steps to recover the amount and there is no finding that the Sarpanch wilfully caused loss. The relationship alone does not establish wilful omission. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act for alleged failure to recover amounts from her husband and for not taking action against illegal construction is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the District Collector, Aurangabad and the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Viramgaon and shall be allowed to function as such with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) requires wilful omission or commission causing loss to Gram Panchayat
- mere non-compliance with administrative orders without loss is insufficient
- quasi-judicial authority must record satisfaction of loss
- appellate authority must consider all grounds
