Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Gita Vijay Somankar, a member of Gram Panchayat Yeoli, was disqualified by the Collector, Gadchiroli and the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The disqualification was based on her indirect interest in a rent agreement executed between the Gram Panchayat and her husband for leasing a shop block. The petitioner challenged the orders, arguing that the word 'contract' in Section 14(1)(g) should be restrictively interpreted to mean only contracts for execution of work, not rent agreements. The respondents, including the State and the third respondent, contended that no such restriction exists. The court, per Justice S.B. Shukre, held that the term 'contract' is not defined in the Act and must be understood as per Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which includes rent agreements. The court found the petitioner's argument misconceived and rejected it. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the disqualification was upheld.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Member - Indirect Interest in Contract - Section 14(1)(g) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The petitioner, a member of Gram Panchayat, was disqualified for being indirectly interested in a rent agreement between the Gram Panchayat and her husband. The court held that the term 'contract' in Section 14(1)(g) is not restricted to works contracts but includes rent agreements, as per the definition under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that only contracts for execution of work are covered. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a rent agreement executed between the Gram Panchayat and the husband of a member constitutes a 'contract' under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, thereby disqualifying the member.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned orders disqualifying the petitioner are upheld.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'contract' under Section 14(1)(g) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1958 includes rent agreements
- Definition of contract under Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act
- 1872 applies
- Indirect interest in contract by spouse disqualifies member
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 165
Writ Petition No.2791 of 2018
Shri U.P. Dable for petitioner; Shri Maldhure AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2; Shri V.N. Morande for respondent no.3
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur; The Collector, Gadchiroli; Chokhaji Pandhari Bhandekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the orders of disqualification passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was disqualified on the ground that she was indirectly interested in a rent agreement between the Gram Panchayat and her husband.
Previous Decisions
The Collector, Gadchiroli and Additional Commissioner, Nagpur passed orders disqualifying the petitioner under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act.
Issues
Whether a rent agreement between Gram Panchayat and the husband of a member constitutes a 'contract' under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that 'contract' in Section 14(1)(g) should be restrictively interpreted to mean only contracts for execution of work, not rent agreements.
Respondents argued that no such restriction exists and the term includes all contracts, including rent agreements.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'contract' in Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is not restricted to works contracts but includes rent agreements, as per the definition under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A member having indirect interest in such a contract through a spouse is liable for disqualification.
Judgment Excerpts
The word 'contract' has not been clarified anywhere in the Act of 1958 or in Section 14 of this Act by laying down that the word has to be understood only in the context of particular type of the contracts and not in relation to other contracts including the rent agreement.
Here the term 'contract' must be understood by the definition of the contract given in Section 2 (h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and considering this definition, there can be no doubt about the fact that the rent agreement executed between the Gram Panchayat and the husband of the petitioner is a contract within the meaning of the Indian Contract Act.
Procedural History
The Collector, Gadchiroli passed an order disqualifying the petitioner under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, who confirmed the disqualification. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 14(1)(g)
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: 2(h)
