Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balaji Ganpati Pawar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 23rd August 2008 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State, under Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (MVP Act). The background of the case involves general elections to the Grampanchayat of Marvade, Taluka Mangalwedha, District Solapur, held on 15th January 2021, in which respondent Nos.4 to 8 were elected from different wards. The petitioner moved an application under Section 14B(1) of the MVP Act before the District Collector, Solapur, seeking disqualification of these respondents on the grounds that they had not submitted election expenses in the time and manner prescribed by the State Election Commission, specifically alleging that they used existing bank accounts instead of independent/special bank accounts and that the expenses shown were false and bogus. The District Collector, after hearing the parties, imposed disqualification on respondent Nos.4 to 8. Aggrieved, the respondents appealed to the State Election Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the MVP Act. The Commissioner, by the impugned order, recalled the disqualification imposed by the District Collector. The petitioner then approached the High Court praying for restoration of the disqualification. The court framed the primary issue as whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the recall order. The court noted that the power to disqualify under Section 14B(1) is vested in the District Collector, and the power to recall under Section 14B(2) is vested in the State Election Commissioner. The petitioner, being merely a complainant, is not an aggrieved party under the Act and has no statutory right to maintain the petition. The court further observed that the petitioner's grievance was not maintainable as the statutory scheme does not confer any right on a complainant to challenge the recall of disqualification. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the State Election Commissioner. The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising M. S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ., on 21st November 2025.
Headnote
A) Locus Standi - Challenge to Recall of Disqualification - Section 14B(2) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The petitioner, a complainant who sought disqualification of elected members, challenged the State Election Commissioner's order recalling the disqualification. The court held that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as the power to disqualify and recall is vested in the statutory authorities, and the petitioner is not an aggrieved party under the Act. (Paras 1-21) B) Disqualification - Election Expenses - Section 14B(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The District Collector had disqualified respondent Nos.4 to 8 for alleged failure to submit election expenses in the prescribed manner. The State Election Commissioner, in appeal, found that the disqualification was not sustainable and recalled it. The court upheld the Commissioner's order, noting that the petitioner's grievance was not maintainable. (Paras 3-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who initiated the disqualification proceedings, has locus standi to challenge the order of the State Election Commissioner recalling the disqualification imposed by the District Collector under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the State Election Commissioner recalling the disqualification is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Disqualification of elected members
- Election expenses
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- Section 14B
- Recall of disqualification
- State Election Commission powers
