Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou Anita Hemantkumar Barawade, was elected as a member of Shigaon Grampanchayat in 2012 on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman and later became Sarpanch. On 12 April 2016, respondent no.5 Rajendra Shivaji Pawar filed an application before the District Collector seeking her disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958, alleging that her husband had encroached upon government property. The petitioner filed a reply opposing the application. By order dated 28 June 2016, the District Collector rejected the application, holding that the alleged encroachment by the husband could not be a ground to disqualify the petitioner. Respondent no.5 appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal on 19 August 2017, disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of section 14(1)(j-3) and noted that the disqualification applies only to a member who personally encroaches upon government property. The court held that there was no allegation that the petitioner herself had encroached; the allegation was only against her husband. The court found that the Additional Commissioner had misconstrued the provision and that the order of disqualification was unsustainable. The High Court quashed the order dated 19 August 2017 and restored the order of the District Collector dated 28 June 2016. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Members - Section 14(1)(j-3) Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - Encroachment by Spouse - The petitioner, a Sarpanch, was disqualified by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that her husband had encroached upon government property. The High Court held that the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) applies only to the member personally and not to acts of the spouse. The order of disqualification was quashed and set aside. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a member of a Grampanchayat can be disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 on the ground that her husband had encroached upon government property.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 19 August 2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, and restored the order dated 28 June 2016 passed by the District Collector, Sangli. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Disqualification of elected member
- Encroachment by spouse
- Strict interpretation of disqualification provisions
- Section 14(1)(j-3) Mumbai Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 92
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.33885 OF 2017
Mr.S.A. Rajeshirke for the Petitioner, Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr.R.N. Gite for the Respondent No.5
Sou Anita Hemantkumar Barawade
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, Pune, The District Collector, Sangli, Grampanchayat, Shigaon, Rajendra Shivaji Pawar
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 an order of disqualification passed by the Additional Commissioner under the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 19 August 2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, which disqualified her as a member of the Grampanchayat.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was disqualified on the ground that her husband had encroached upon government property, which she contended was not a valid ground under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The District Collector, Sangli, by order dated 28 June 2016, rejected the application for disqualification. The Additional Commissioner, Pune, by order dated 19 August 2017, allowed the appeal and disqualified the petitioner.
Issues
Whether a member of a Grampanchayat can be disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for encroachment by her spouse on government property.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) applies only to the member personally and not to acts of the spouse.
The respondent no.5 contended that the husband's encroachment should be attributed to the petitioner and that the Additional Commissioner correctly disqualified her.
Ratio Decidendi
The disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 applies only to the member who personally encroaches upon government property. An encroachment by the spouse of the member does not attract disqualification under this provision.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Commissioner has misconstrued the provisions of section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act. The said provision disqualifies a member who himself or herself encroaches upon the Government property. There is no allegation against the petitioner that she has encroached upon any Government property. The allegation is only against the husband of the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected as member of Shigaon Grampanchayat in 2012 and became Sarpanch. On 12 April 2016, respondent no.5 filed an application for her disqualification before the District Collector, Sangli. The District Collector rejected the application on 28 June 2016. Respondent no.5 appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal on 19 August 2017, disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 19 December 2017, which was allowed by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958: 14(1)(j-3)
- Constitution of India: 227
