Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - No Statutory Appeal Lies Against Section 14B(1) Order Refusing To Disqualify Sarpanch Or Panchayat Member Panchayat: Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar allowed an appeal filed assailing the order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, wherein the order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("Act") setting aside the orders of the Collector under Section 14B(1) was affirmed. The Apex Court set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner as non-est in law, and restored the orders passed by the Collector rejecting the applications seeking disqualification of the appellants.

Factual Background

The appellants contested Panchayat elections in September, 2018. One of the appellants was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kusumba, Taluka and District Dhule in Maharashtra, while the other was elected as a member of the same Village Panchayat. One Sangram Govindrav Patil filed two dispute applications with the Collector to disqualify the appellants under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 for not submitting election expenses within stipulated time, which were eventually rejected. The appeals preferred by Patil were allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Region and the appellants were disqualified. Subsequently, they filed writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court affirmed the order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Contentions raised by the parties

Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the Act does not provide for an appeal against the order passed by the Collector under Section 14B(1). It was further averred that the remedy provided by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) is limited to removing disqualification or reducing the period of disqualification. It was emphasised that no appeal lies from rejection of application seeking disqualification of Sarpanch/Member under the Act. Advocate, Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, appearing on behalf of Sangram Govindrav Patil, argued to the contrary.

Analysis of the Supreme Court

Sections 14B(1) and 14B(2) operate in two different silos

The Court observed that Section 14B(1) of the Act as inserted by an amendment in 2010 enabled the State Election Commission to declare a member of Panchayat as disqualified for being a member or contesting election, for a period of five years from the date of order, if they fail to lodge account of election expenses within stipulated time period and in the prescribed manner. It further noted that Section 14B(2) inserted by the same amendment, enabled the State Election Commission to remove the disqualification imposed by Section 14B(1) or reduce the period. The State Election Commission issued an order under Article 243-K of the Constitution and Section 10A(2) of the Act to delegate the power under Section 14B(1) to the Collector of District and the power under Section 14B(2) to the concerned Divisional Commissioner. The Apex Court asserted that there was no provision in the Act to indicate that there exists an appeal against the order of the Collector refusing to disqualify the Sarpanch/member under Section 14B(1). Under Section 14B(2) the Divisional Officer was authorised to only remove or reduce the period of disqualification and nothing more. The Court observed that Section 14B(2) would only come into play in cases where the Collector disqualifies a member and not where it rejects application for disqualification.

"The power of the State Election Commission, bestowed under sub­Section (1) or (2) of Section 14B, though concerns subject of disqualification of a person, it operates in two different silos. In that, the power under Section 14B(2) gets triggered only after an order of disqualification is passed under Section 14B(1). The former is not activated at all in a case where the application or the proceedings to declare the Sarpanch/Member as disqualified, is rejected or dropped."

Appeal cannot lie before the same authority

It was emphasised by the Court that the statute, which granted power under both Section 14B(1) and Section 14B(2) to the State Election Commissioner could not have intended Section 14B(2) to act as an appeal mechanism for Section 14B(1), as appeal can never lie before the same authority.

"Taking any other view would inevitably result in a situation where the power exercised by the State Election Commission under Section 14B(1) could be appealed against before itself (its delegatee). That cannot be countenanced. For, an appeal cannot lie before the same Authority/functionary who had passed the order of rejection of prayer to declare the member concerned as disqualified."

Analogy cannot be drawn from remedy of the appeal in Section 16(2)

The reasoning of the High Court, wherein analogy was drawn from remedy of appeal in Section 16(2), which deals with disability from continuing as a member, did not hold sway over the Supreme Court. In cases where the Collector rejects the complaint and drops the proceedings in favour of the Sarpanch, there would be no question of vacancy and if the Collector declares the member to stand disqualified then the Collector ought to decide if the vacancy had occurred on account of disqualification, which would fall under the ambit of Section 16(2). Therefore, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the two processes were distinct.

"We hasten to observe that the High Court posed a wrong question to itself in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment (whether the Divisional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under "Section 16(2)" against an order of Collector under Section 14B(1) refusing to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member), and as a result of which arrived at the wrong conclusion."

Case Name: Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 11

Case No. and Date: Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2022 | 4 Jan 2022

Corum: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment