Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gautam s/o Rama Latke, was elected as a Councillor from the Anala (30) Constituency of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. He was aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 21/12/2017, which held that he had incurred disqualification under Section 16(1)(n) read with Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for having fathered three children. The petitioner had three biological children: twin daughters born on 01/11/2000 and a son born on 01/04/2005, all from the same wife. The petitioner argued that there was insufficient space in the nomination form to mention all three children, and that the first two children were twins. The court rejected these arguments, holding that the Act does not provide any exception for twins or multiple births, and the policy of family planning must be strictly enforced. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disqualification order.
Headnote
A) Local Government - Disqualification of Councillor - Section 16(1)(n) r/w Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 - Family Planning - The petitioner, a Zilla Parishad councillor, fathered three children (including twins) and was disqualified by the Additional Commissioner. The court upheld the disqualification, holding that the Act does not provide any exception for twins or multiple births, and the policy of family planning must be strictly enforced to curb population explosion. (Paras 1-10)
B) Local Government - Interpretation of Disqualification Provisions - Section 16(1)(n) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 - Strict Construction - The court held that the disqualification provision for having more than two children is clear and unambiguous, and no leniency or exception can be read into it. The petitioner's argument that there was no space in the nomination form to mention all three children was rejected as untenable. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Zilla Parishad councillor who has three biological children, including twins, is disqualified under Section 16(1)(n) read with Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The order of the Additional Commissioner dated 21/12/2017 disqualifying the petitioner under Section 16(1)(n) r/w Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is upheld.
Law Points
- Disqualification for having more than two children
- Section 16(1)(n) r/w Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
- 1961
- Strict interpretation of disqualification provisions
- No exception for twins or multiple births
- Family planning as a policy objective
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 9
WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2018
Mr.V.J.Dixit, Sr.Counsel h/f Mr.A.R.Devkate, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Sr.Counsel h/f Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, Advocate for respondent No.4; Mrs.S.S.Renge, Advocate for respondent No.3
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parshad Osmanabad, Chandrakant s/o Hari Hivare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging disqualification order under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Additional Commissioner's order dated 21/12/2017 disqualifying him as a Councillor.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was disqualified for having three children, which he argued was due to lack of space in nomination form and the fact that the first two were twins.
Previous Decisions
Additional Commissioner held petitioner disqualified under Section 16(1)(n) r/w Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of the 1961 Act.
Issues
Whether having three children, including twins, attracts disqualification under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there was no space in the nomination form to mention all three children, and that the first two children were twins.
Respondents argued that the Act does not provide any exception for twins or multiple births, and the disqualification is clear.
Ratio Decidendi
The disqualification provision under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for having more than two children is clear and unambiguous. No exception can be made for twins or multiple births. The policy of family planning must be strictly enforced to curb population explosion.
Judgment Excerpts
This case underlines the importance of family planning in a country which has already suffered population explosion.
The petitioner elected as a Councillor ... is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 21/12/2017 by which he has been held to have incurred the disqualification to continue as a Councillor u/s 16(1)(n) r/w Section 16(2)(e) and Section 40 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for having fathered three children.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected as a Councillor. Respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 40 before the Divisional Commissioner seeking disqualification. The Additional Commissioner passed an order on 21/12/2017 disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961: Section 16(1)(n), Section 16(2)(e), Section 40
