Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification of Sarpanch in Corruption Case — No Material to Show Acceptance of Bribe by Petitioner. Disqualification under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 set aside as mere registration of FIR against petitioner and her husband under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not prove personal involvement in bribe acceptance.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Priti Manoj Bundile, was elected as a member of Gram Panchayat Mahuli Jahangir, Amravati on 15.01.2021 and subsequently elected as Sarpanch on 16.02.2021, with the term of the Gram Panchayat running from 16.02.2021 to 15.02.2026. While she was holding the post of Sarpanch, a complaint was lodged by one Rambhau Ganesh Mondhe, leading to the registration of an FIR against her and her husband under Sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint alleged that the petitioner's husband demanded Rs.4,000/- for issuance of an experience certificate to be signed by the petitioner as Sarpanch. The verification of demand was conducted on 26.09.2023, and a trap was laid on 27.09.2023, in which the husband was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The petitioner was not present at the time of the trap. Based on this FIR, the Additional Commissioner passed an order under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The crucial issue was whether the petitioner could be disqualified in the absence of any material showing her acceptance of the bribe. The court noted that the FIR and the trap proceedings clearly indicated that the demand and acceptance were made by the husband alone, and there was no material to show that the petitioner herself accepted the bribe or was involved in the demand. The court held that the mere registration of an FIR against the petitioner does not constitute sufficient material for disqualification under Section 39(1) of the Act. The court quashed the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Minister, and allowed the petition, setting aside the disqualification.

Headnote

A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Disqualification for corrupt practice - The petitioner, a Sarpanch, was disqualified based on an FIR alleging that her husband demanded and accepted a bribe for issuance of an experience certificate to be signed by her. The court held that in the absence of any material showing that the petitioner herself accepted the bribe or was involved in the demand, the disqualification was unsustainable. The mere registration of an FIR against her does not constitute sufficient material for disqualification under Section 39(1). (Paras 3-8)

B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7A, 12 - Bribe demand by husband - The trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau resulted in the husband being caught red-handed accepting the bribe. There was no evidence that the petitioner was present or participated in the demand or acceptance. The court noted that the petitioner was not even present at the time of the trap. (Paras 4-6)

C) Constitutional Law - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to quash the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Minister, which had disqualified the petitioner. The court found that the authorities had acted without proper material and thus the orders were perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 1, 8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a Sarpanch can be disqualified under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 solely on the basis of an FIR registered against her and her husband under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of any material showing her acceptance of bribe.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Hon'ble Minister disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Law Points

  • Disqualification under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
  • 1959 requires material showing personal involvement in corrupt practice
  • mere registration of FIR is insufficient
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 459

WRIT PETITION NO. 2331 OF 2025

2025-11-04

Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.

2025:BHC-NAG:11410

Shri N.A. Gawande for petitioner; Shri S.V. Narale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2; Shri J.B. Kasat for respondent no.3; Shri B.J. Lonare for respondent no.4; Shri R.N. Ghuge for respondent no.5

Priti Manoj Bundile

Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32; The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati; The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati; The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mahuli Jahagir, Tahsil and District Amravati; Sudhir Krushnarao Bijwe

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of disqualification passed under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Hon'ble Minister disqualifying her as Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was disqualified based on an FIR registered against her and her husband under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite no material showing her acceptance of bribe.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Commissioner passed an order under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Minister.

Issues

Whether the petitioner can be disqualified under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 in the absence of any material showing her acceptance of bribe.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there is no material to show that she accepted the bribe; the trap caught her husband red-handed, and she was not present. Respondents argued that the FIR and the fact that the bribe was for a certificate to be signed by the petitioner justified disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi

Disqualification under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 requires material showing personal involvement in corrupt practice; mere registration of an FIR against the petitioner, without evidence of her acceptance of bribe, is insufficient to sustain disqualification.

Judgment Excerpts

The crucial issue involved in the instant petition is as to whether the petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused in an offence registered against her and her husband under Sections 7, 7(A) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be disqualified as Member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, even in absence of any material to show the acceptance of bribe amount by the petitioner. In the said report, it was alleged by the complainant that husband of the petitioner has demanded an amount of Rs.4,000/- for issuance of an experience certificate to be signed by the Sarpanch, which post was held by the petitioner. The trap was conducted on 27.09.2023 in which the husband of petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, the offence was registered against the petitioner and her husband.

Procedural History

The petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat on 15.01.2021 and as Sarpanch on 16.02.2021. On 25.09.2023, an FIR was lodged against her and her husband under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Additional Commissioner passed an order under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 disqualifying her, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 39(1)
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 7A, 12
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Decree Holder's Petition in Eviction Decree Execution — Division Bench of Small Causes Court Exceeded Revisional Jurisdiction by Remanding Matter for Proposal to Remove Structure. The decree had attained finality up to the ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Dishonour of Cheque Cases Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice and Absence of Debt or Liability. Cheques Issued as Security for Future Transactions Do Not Attract Section 138 of Negotiable I...