High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} wp 6416.24 f.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6416 OF 20241. Manisha Rajendra Mahajan, Age 47 years, Occ. Household,2. Mohini Vinod Mahajan, Age 40 years, Occ. Household,3. Madhuri Mangal Sonawane, Age 38 yaers, Occ. Household, All r/o. Utran, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon... PETITIONERS.Versus1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra, New Administrative Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Mumai 400 032.3. The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.4. The Tahsildar, Erandol, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon.5. Dnyaneshwar Bajirao Mahajan, Age major, Occ. Agri. r/o. Utran, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon... RESPONDENTS.… {2} wp 6416.24 f.odtMr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent State.Mr. Ajit B. Kadethankar, for respondent No.2 – Election Commission,Mr.Avinash N. Patil Barhate for respondent No.5. CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 8TH JULY, 2024.PRONOUNCED ON : 15th JULY, 2024.JUDGMENT :-1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallyby consent of learned advocate for the parties.2.The petitioners are impugning the order dated 31st May,2024 passed by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, inSpecial Application No. 6 of 2024 as well as the order dated 15.3.2024passed by District Collector Jalgaon in Gram Panchayat Dispute No. 163of 2023.3.Mr. Vinod Patil, learned advocate for the petitioners submitsthat the petitioners were elected as members of Village Panchayat,Utaran, Taluka Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon on 18.1.2021. As per theprovisions of Section 14(B)(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Village Panchayat Act” for sake ofbrevity) read with directives issued by the State Election Commission, thecandidate at an election requires to maintain account of his expenses andfurnish the details of such expenses alongwith the affidavit with theTahsildar within prescribed period of 30 days from the date ofdeclaration of result of the election. Mr. Patil submits that the petitioners {3} wp 6416.24 f.odthave submitted such details. However, respondent No.5 complainedbefore Collector that petitioners have failed to comply with the obligationin terms of the orders issued by the State Election Commission. And theprovisions of Section 14(B)(1) of the Village Panchayat Act.4.The Collector, Jalgaon entertained such application and afterhearing the parties, disqualified petitioners upholding the charge. Mr.Patil would submit that the default on the part of the petitioners wasunintentional. In fact, they have submitted the election expenses, but,they failed to file supporting affidavit. That itself, could not have beencapitalized to unseat the petitioners from the elected office.5.Mr. Patil would submit that the petitioners had approachedthe State Election Commission vide Application NO. 6 of 2024. However,their application was partly allowed bringing down the disqualificationperiod to the extent of present term, with the rider that they shall not beeligible to contest the bye-elections, if any, held before next generalelections.6.Per contra, Mr. S.N. Kendre, learned AGP and Mr. AvinashBarhate Patil appearing for respondent No.5 support the impugnedorders.7.Section 14(B) of the Maharashtra village Panchayat Act,reads thus :-“14B. Disqualification by State Election Commission.-(1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person,- {4} wp 6416.24 f.odt (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a member of panchayat or for contesting an election for being a member for a period of five years from the dateof this order. (2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification."8.Having considered the submissions advanced in the light ofaforesaid provision, it is not disputed by the petitioners that althoughthey have submitted details of election expenses within stipulated period,no supporting affidavit was tendered affirming that true and correctinformation has been tendered without suppression of expenses. Section14(B)(1) of the Village Panchayat Act prescribes for disqualifcation ofmember of the Village Panchayat in case, he violates the mandaterequiring him to file election expenses in prescribed format and in themanner prescribed for that purpose. As such, the petitioners wereexpected to furnish details of the expenses alongwith affidavit complying
Legal Reasoning
{5} wp 6416.24 f.odtwith the aforesaid requirements.9.Mr. Kadethankar, learned advocate for respondent No.2 –State Election Commission, brings to the notice of this court variousorders issued by the State Election Commission prescribing the mode andmanner of maintainance of account and furnishing details of suchaccounts. Order dated 15.10.2016, particularly, clause (iii) of para.3mandates that the candidate shall furnish the election expensesalongwith affidavit containing statement that there is no suppression ofexpenses and particulars of expenses are true and correct. He would alsoinvite attention o this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court ofIndia in the matter of Laxmibai vs. Collector, Nanded and others reportedin 2020 AIR SCW 3393 to contend that the disqualification on the basisof default in furnishing election expenses in the manner prescribed underorders of the Election Commission, has been approved.10.Pertinently, this court has dealt with similar situation in thecase of Bhimraj Namdeo Chattar vs. Additional Divisional Commissionerand others, reported in 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 4825, wherein this Courtobserved as under :-“14. It is a matter of record that the petitioner thoughhas submitted election expenses with the Tahsildar, hehas failed to submit affidavit in Proforma in Form No. 2giving total amount of expenses and supportingaffidavit. The Tahsildar has submitted report on 9thMarch, 2021 to the effect that the petitioner hassubmitted account of daily expenses, however, has notfilled form and the affidavit. {6} wp 6416.24 f.odt15. In view of section 14-B(1)(a) of the said Act, thepetitioner was required to submit Form No. 2 andaffidavit in Form No. 3 within the stipulated time of 30days, which the petitioner has failed to submit. In thatview of the matter, the Collector was justified indisqualifying the petitioner from holding the post ofSarpanch for non compliance of section 14-B of the saidAct. In this view of the matter, it is not possible toaccept the contention of the petitioner that it wasmerely a technical defect and the petitioner ought tohave been given an opportunity to rectify the technicaldefect and to do the compliance, by submitting formNo. 2 and affidavit in support of the same.”11.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the presentcase, no fault can be found in the impugned orders, particularly when theState Election Commission has already reduced the period of dis-qualification of the petitioners for remaining period of present term ofGram Panchayat only, although Section 14(B) of the Village Panchayatact enables the State Election Commission to dis-qualify defaultingcandidate/member for a period of 5 years from the date of the order,exercise of powers conferred under sub-clause (2) of Section 14(B) of theVillage Panchayat Act. In that view of the matter, no case is made out forinterference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writpetition fails and same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Nocosts. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] JUDGEgrt/-