Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jabin Akhtar Shirgonkar and another, were elected as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively of the Grampanchayat, Karla, Taluka & District Ratnagiri, in a meeting held on 12th August 2005. The respondents, who were members of the same Grampanchayat, challenged this election before the Additional Collector under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Additional Collector, by order dated 17th October 2005, set aside the election on the ground that the petitioners were disqualified under Section 14 of the Act because they were defaulters of a cooperative society. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 26th December 2005. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The main legal issue was whether a member who is a defaulter of a cooperative society is disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. The court analyzed Section 14 of the Act, which lists disqualifications for membership of a Grampanchayat, and found that being a defaulter of a cooperative society is not a disqualification under that section. The court also noted that the respondents had not challenged the election of the petitioners as members of the Grampanchayat, only their election as office bearers. The court held that the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner had erred in law by importing a disqualification not provided in the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, and upheld the election of the petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayat Law - Election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch - Disqualification - Section 14, Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The court considered whether a member who is a defaulter of a cooperative society is disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. The court held that Section 14 of the Act specifies disqualifications for being a member of the Grampanchayat, and being a defaulter of a cooperative society is not one of them. Therefore, the election of the petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was valid. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a member of a Grampanchayat who is a defaulter of a cooperative society is disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector dated 17th October 2005 and the Additional Commissioner dated 26th December 2005, and upheld the election of the petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Election law
- Village Panchayat
- Disqualification
- Defaulter
- Cooperative Society
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
- Section 14
- Section 33(5)
- Writ jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (02) 20
WRIT PETITION NO.9397 OF 2005
Shri P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Shri R.D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners; Shri Ashok S. Kadam with Shri Rakesh Bhatkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 7; Shri A.H. Palekar, A.G.P for Respondent Nos.8,9 & 13
Jabin Akhtar Shirgonkar & Ors.
Samshad Iqbal Mukadam & Ors.
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 orders of Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner setting aside election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 26th December 2005 and 17th October 2005 and restoration of their election as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
The Additional Collector set aside the election of petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch on the ground that they were defaulters of a cooperative society, which was upheld by the Additional Commissioner.
Previous Decisions
Additional Collector, Ratnagiri, by order dated 17th October 2005 in Grampanchayat Appeal (S.R.) No.35 of 2005, set aside the election. Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by order dated 26th December 2005 in V.P. Appeal No.383 of 2005, dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether a member of a Grampanchayat who is a defaulter of a cooperative society is disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 does not include being a defaulter of a cooperative society as a disqualification for membership or for being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch.
Respondents contended that the petitioners were defaulters of a cooperative society and thus disqualified under Section 14.
Ratio Decidendi
The disqualifications for being a member of a Grampanchayat are specified in Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and being a defaulter of a cooperative society is not one of them. Therefore, a member cannot be disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch on that ground.
Judgment Excerpts
The disqualifications for being a member of a Grampanchayat are specified in Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and being a defaulter of a cooperative society is not one of them.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Grampanchayat Appeal under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri, who set aside the election of petitioners as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch on 17th October 2005. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, who dismissed the appeal on 26th December 2005. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 14, Section 33(5)
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
