StateMr v. D. Salunke
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 5426 OF 2024Achut Ekanath BondhareVERSUSUppar Divisional Commissioner I And OthersMr. P. R. Katneshwar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R. S. Patil, Advocate for PetitionerMr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/StateMr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 26th February, 2025PER COURT :-1.This petition takes exception to order dated 23.04.2024passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chatrapati SambhajiNagar in an appeal under Section 16(2) of Maharashtra VillagePanchayats Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”) and seeking confirmation oforder passed by the Collector dated 15.12.2023 disqualifying contestingrespondent under Section 14(1)(g-1) of the Act.2.It is a case of the petitioner that he filed complaint againstKantabai Shivdas Gaikar and Meenabai Ankush Rathod before Collector,Nanded under the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) of the MaharashtraGram Panchayat Act, 1958 alleging financial misappropriation of theGram Panchayat funds without seeking complaint bearing No.910-WP-5426-2024.odt1 of 7 2023/GB/Desk-1/grapni/CR-100 was heard by Collector, Nanded and byorder dated 15.12.2023, disqualification of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 wasdirected. These respondents preferred appeal under Section 16(2) of theAct before the Additional Divisional Commissioner challenging the saidorder passed by Collector. Petitioner appeared in the said proceeding andfiled reply pointing out the account statement of Gram Panchayatindicating that not only Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as husband ofRespondent No. 4 has withdrawn Gram Panchayat funds but also morethan this amount has been misappropriated and misused in exercise ofpowers of the post held by them. In this regard, it is a case of thepetitioner by referring two specific entries indicating withdrawal, theappeal was sought to be dismissed. It was further case of the petitionerthat there was a report of Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad,Nanded so also the following statements indicating withdrawal of thefunds from the account of Gram Panchayat by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4and their relatives. It was also sought to be made out before theAppellate Authority that the another bank account of Gram Panchayatwas having balance of Rs. 8,27,621/- and hence, there was no need toseek advance amount from any members of the Gram Panchayat orprivate persons. Since the Appellate Authority has caused interference inthe order passed by the Collector, this petition.910-WP-5426-2024.odt2 of 7
Legal Reasoning
3.Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitionersubmits that there is evidence on record to indicate the misappropriationof the funds of Gram Panchayat and withdrawal of the same byRespondent Nos. 3 and 4 and their relatives. It is his submission that thereport of Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad is sufficiently clear tothe extent that in another account of Gram Panchayat, there was morethan Rs. 8 lakhs available and hence, there was no occasion arose andfor accepting any deposits from the members of Gram Panchayat or anyother person. It is his submission that the Collector has rightlyappreciated the said evidence on record and has disqualified therespondent Nos.3 and 4 as a members of the Gram Panchayat. He placedreliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of BalajiGanpati Manmode Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2013 (3)Bom. C. R. 613 .4.Learned counsel for contesting respondents supported theimpugned order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.Reference is made to the resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat ofaccepting the deposit from the members as well as from private person.In this regard, the document indicating the receipt issued by the GramPanchayat so also entries in the account of Gram Panchayat indicatingsuch deposits are relied upon. It is submitted by the learned counsel for910-WP-5426-2024.odt3 of 7 these respondents that provisions of Section 14 (1)(g) cannot be invokedin order to settle the political scores and only when if it is found from therecord that there is misappropriation of the funds, the disqualificationcould get attracted and not otherwise.5.Though, it is sought to be argued on behalf of the petitionerthat as per the report of Chief Executive Officer in one of the accounts ofGram Panchayat a sum of more than Rs. 8 lakh was found to the credit.However, the documentary evidence in form of resolution which wasplaced before the Collector as well as Additional Divisional Commissionerclearly shows that the Gram Panchayat was not having sufficient funds inorder to perform certain works in the interest of public and for thatpurpose from the members as well as from private person, deposits wereaccepted. Moreover it is not a case wherein there is only a resolution unor the receipts issued in this regard but the bank statement of GramPanchayat clearly confirms the said fact.6.At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions ofSection 14 of the Act which reads thus :-(1)No person shall be a member of a panchayatcontinue as such, who--***910-WP-5426-2024.odt4 of 7 ***(g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner,any share or interest in any work done by order of thePanchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of,or employment with or under, the Panchayat; or***7.Section 16 of the Act enables Collector to take cognizance ofany such complaint and if it is established that the case is covered byclauses (a) to (k) of Section 14(1), disqualification can be attached tosuch member of Grampanchayat. In the instant case, case of thepetitioner is said to be covered by Clause (g). Thus to substantiate thecomplaint, it must be shown that the contesting respondents/membersof Gram Panchayat have any direct or indirect interest in the work doneby Gram Panchayat or any contract with or on behalf of or byemployment with or under Panchayat. There is allegation againstmembers that they and relatives withdraw money of Gram Panchayat.Apparently, the said allegation is not covered by Clause (g) of Section 14of the Act. The only fact which appears from record that certain amountsare withdrawn from the account of Grampanchayat. The contention ofthe Petitioner is that an amount of about Rs. 8 lakhs was available in oneof the Account of Gram Panchayat and hence there was no reason topass any resolution to accept deposit.910-WP-5426-2024.odt5 of 7 8.Even if it is accepted that the sake of argument that Rs. 8Lakhs was available in another account of Gram Panchayat, however,there is nothing on record to inform that the said amount was open forexpenditure for the work sought to be done by the Gram Panchayat.Needless to say that there are different accounts for different purposesand the funds allocated for one purpose cannot be allowed to be utilizedfor another. In such circumstances, when there is evidence on record inthe form of resolution of Gram Panchayat, receipt received by GramPanchayat indicating the acceptance of deposit coupled with the bankentries in the Gram Panchayat account, it cannot be said that thewithdrawals done by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and their relatives amountto misappropriation of the funds of Gram Panchayat. There is further nomaterial to indicate that resolution passed by Gram Panchayat ischallenged.9.The Additional Divisional Commissioner has taken intoconsideration the documentary evidence on record more particularlyentries in the bank account of Gram Panchayat which were completelyignored by the Collector. In such circumstances, having regard to thepurpose/intention of the legislator, unless ingredients of clause (g) areproved question of disqualifying the petitioner does not arise. In the factsof the case, findings recorded by the Additional Divisional Commissioner910-WP-5426-2024.odt6 of 7 are in consonance with the material evidence on record and hencecannot be termed as perverse. Hence, there is no substance in thepetition.10.Petition stands dismissed.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)bsj910-WP-5426-2024.odt7 of 7