Case Note & Summary
The case involved six writ petitions arising from a dispute over the disqualification of members of Dhadgaon Panchayat Samiti, Nandurbar, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. Five members elected on 28/12/2013 were disqualified by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, by order dated 18/04/2017 on the ground that they had remained absent from three consecutive monthly meetings of the Panchayat Samiti held on 21/04/2016, 13/05/2016, 09/06/2016, and 24/06/2016. The disqualified members filed writ petitions (Nos. 5602, 5641, 5639, 5640, 5642/2017) challenging the order, while the complainant filed two separate writ petitions (Nos. 5655, 5656/2017) challenging the exemption granted to two other members. The vacation court on 11/05/2017 granted ad-interim stay of the disqualification order, noting a prima facie case. The core legal issue was whether Section 62(1)(b) of the Act requires absence for three consecutive months or merely three consecutive meetings. The petitioners argued that the period from 21/04 to 24/06 was less than three months and that they had submitted leave applications; they relied on Abdul Latif Nomani v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur (AIR 1968 All 44), Thampanoor Ravi v. Charupara Ravi ((1999) 8 SCC 74), and Chirak Chandu Khatik v. G.V. Kshirsagar (1965 BLR 657). The respondents contended that absence in three consecutive meetings sufficed and that leave applications could not exempt disqualification, citing Radhakrishnan v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ILR 2008(2) Kerala 489). The Court, after hearing final arguments, held that the expression 'for a period of three consecutive months' in Section 62(1)(b) means continuous absence for three months calculated from the date of the first absence. Since the period from the first absent meeting (21/04/2016) to the last (24/06/2016) was less than three months, the disqualification order was unsustainable. The Court also noted the absence of rules under the Act governing the procedure for considering leave applications, but did not render a final decision on that point as the first issue was decisive. Accordingly, the first five writ petitions were allowed and the disqualification order was set aside; the cross-petitions of the complainant were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Members - Absence for three consecutive months required, not three consecutive meetings - Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, Section 62(1)(b) - The court held that the disqualification provision is attracted when a member remains absent from Panchayat Samiti meetings for a period of three consecutive months, computed from the date of the first absence. The period between the first absence on 21/04/2016 and the last meeting on 24/06/2016 was less than three months, thus the disqualification order dated 18/04/2017 was not sustainable. Reliance was placed on Abdul Latif Nomani v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur, AIR 1968 Allahabad 44, which interpreted a similar provision. Held that the stay of disqualification was confirmed and the petitions of the first five members were allowed. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether disqualification of members of Panchayat Samiti under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is triggered by absence from three consecutive meetings or by absence for a continuous period of three months, and whether the leave applications filed by members affect the disqualification.
Final Decision
The Court held that disqualification under Section 62(1)(b) requires absence for three consecutive months, computed from the date of first absence, and not merely three consecutive meetings. The period from 21/04/2016 to 24/06/2016 being less than three months, the disqualification order dated 18/04/2017 was set aside. Consequently, the first five petitioners' writ petitions were allowed and the disqualification was quashed. The cross-petitions by the complainant were dismissed.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
- 1961 requires absence for three consecutive months
- calculated from the date of first absence
- mere absence in three consecutive meetings is not sufficient if the period is less than three months.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 16
Writ Petition Nos.5602, 5641, 5639, 5640, 5642, 5655, 5656 of 2017
Mr. P.R. Patil for petitioners, Mr. A.S. Savale for respondent No.3, Mrs. V.S. Chaudhari for respondent Nos.4 & 5, Mr. N.T. Bhagat, AGP for State
Kalusing s/o Sunya Padvi, Gautam Dashrath Vasave, Devji Parashi Valvi, Kavita Tanaji Pawara, Mishribai Govind Padvi (first five matters) and Ravindra Parshi Paradke (sixth and seventh matters)
State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department; Divisional Commissioner, Nashik; Ravindra Parshi Paradke; Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar; Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dhadgaon; Vimal Satya Valvi; Moycha Satya Pawara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to disqualification order as members of Panchayat Samiti and cross-challenge to grant of exemption from disqualification.
Remedy Sought
First five petitioners sought to quash the disqualification order dated 18/04/2017; sixth and seventh petitioners sought to quash the exemption granted to two other members.
Filing Reason
First five petitioners were disqualified by the Divisional Commissioner for alleged absence from three consecutive meetings of Panchayat Samiti; they contended that the absence was not for three consecutive months as required by law. The sixth petitioner (complainant) challenged the exemption granted to two other members who had also been absent.
Previous Decisions
Interim stay of the disqualification order granted on 11/05/2017 by the vacation court; the matter was then heard finally.
Issues
Whether disqualification under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 requires absence from three consecutive meetings or a continuous period of three months?
Whether the leave applications filed by absent members affect the operation of the disqualification provision?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that absence was for less than three months and that Section 62(1)(b) requires absence for three consecutive months, not three consecutive meetings, and that they had filed leave applications; they relied on Abdul Latif Nomani, Thampanoor Ravi, and Chirak Chandu Khatik.
Respondents argued that absence in three consecutive monthly meetings attracts disqualification regardless of the period, and that leave applications cannot exempt; they relied on Radhakrishnan v. Joint Registrar of Coop. Societies.
In cross-petitions, the complainant argued that exemption granted to two members was illegal as no exemption is permissible under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
For disqualification under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, the member must have remained absent from Panchayat Samiti meetings for a continuous period of three consecutive months. The period is computed from the date of the first meeting from which the member absented. Absence from three consecutive meetings without the period of three months does not attract disqualification.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 62 (1) (b) of the Act provides for disqualification of the members of the Panchayat Samiti who would remain absent from the Panchayat Samiti meetings for a period of three consecutive months, and not three consecutive meetings.
the period of three months has to be computed from the date of the first meeting from which member absented. The said period is less than three months.
the first issue of calculating the period of absence ... deserve consideration in this case.
the second issue of tendering of leave applications seeking permission to abstain from a monthly meeting, deserve consideration in this case.
Procedural History
The first five petitioners, members of Dhadgaon Panchayat Samiti, were disqualified by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, vide order dated 18/04/2017 in Panchayat Samiti Disqualification Petition No.7/2016 under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for absence from meetings. They filed writ petitions (Nos. 5602, 5641, 5639, 5640, 5642/2017) challenging the disqualification. The vacation court on 11/05/2017 granted ad-interim stay of the disqualification order and issued notice. Meanwhile, the complainant Ravindra Parshi Paradke filed writ petitions (Nos. 5655, 5656/2017) challenging the exemption granted to two other members. All petitions were clubbed and heard finally on 26/09/2017.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961: 62(1)(b)
- Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act: 40(1)(a)
