Dismissed

Mangal Prakash Mulgir and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Apr 2017WP/4193/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench dismissed writ petitions challenging disqualification orders passed against Grampanchayat members for failing to submit election expense accounts. The Court upheld the orders, finding no discretion to allow relief due to admitted lack of justification and valid natural justice procedures.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions No. 04193 of 2015 and No. 04809 of 2015 are dismissed; interim stay on election results is vacated.

Mangal Prakash Mulgir and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809

¶2

of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 04193 of 2015

¶5

District : Parbhani

¶6

1. Mangal w/o. Prakash Mulgir, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Mahatpuri, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

¶7

2. Dashrath s/o. Dnyanoba Dhumal, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. As above.

¶8

3. Khajabee w/o. Habib Pathan, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. As above.

¶9

4. Sau. Sushila w/o. Vaijnath Gejage, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. As above.

¶10

5. Sau. Sunita w/o. Banshi Mulgir, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. As above.

¶11

6. Kiran s/o. Bapurao Chaphale, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. As above.

¶12

7. Sau. Chhaya w/o. Prakash Jakapure, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. As above.

¶13

8. Sau. Kashibai w/o. Kishan Rathod, .. Petitioners Age : 45 years, (Original Occupation : Household, appellants) R/o. As above.

¶14

`(2)` `versus`	`W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809` `of 2015`
`1. The State of Maharashtra,` `Through its Secretary,` `Rural Development Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai.`
`2. The State Election Commission,` `Maharashtra State.`
`3. The Additional Divisional` `Commissioner,` `Aurangabad Division,` `Aurangabad.`
`4. The District Collector,` `Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.`
`5. The Tahsildar, Gangakhed,` `Taluka Gangakhed,` `District Parbhani.`	`.. Respondents.`
`.........` `With`	`..`
`Writ Petition No.`	`04809 of 2015`
	`District : Parbhani`
`1. Eknath s/o. Marotrao Gejge,` `Age : 37 years,` `Occupation : Labour,` `R/o. Bhambarwadi,` `Taluka Gangakhed,` `District Parbhani.`
`2. Sau. Rekha w/o. Eknath Gejge,` `Age : 30 years,` `Occupation : Household,` `R/o. As above.`
`3. Savita w/o. Daulatrao Bhambre,`
`Age : 50 years,`
`Occupation : Household,` `R/o. As above.`

¶15

(3) W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809 of 2015

¶16

4. Meerabai w/o. Prabhakar Horgule, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. As above.

¶17

versus

¶18

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶19

2. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State.

¶20

3. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶21

4. The District Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

¶22

5. The Tahsildar, Gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani. .. Respondents.

¶23

...........

¶24

Mr. Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶25

Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01, 03, 04 and 05.

¶26

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶27

...........

¶28

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J.

¶29

 DATE : 25TH APRIL 2017

¶30

ORAL ORDER :

¶31

At the request of the Counsel, as the two
petitions raise identical issues, they were heard

¶32

(4)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809
of 2015

¶33

together and are being disposed of by this common
order.

¶34

02.These two petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India have challenged two independent
orders dated 08th April 2015, passed by the Addl.
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, upholding two
independent orders dated 06th January 2015, passed by
the District Collector, Parbhani, disqualifying the
petitioners as Members of Grampanchayat of Mahatpuri
and Bhambarwadi, respectively, both in Taluka
Gangakhed, District Parbhani, under Section 14B of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 [the
Act]. This for having failed to lodge an account of
election expenses within the prescribed time in the
prescribed manner without good reasons.

¶35

03.By two orders dated 06th January 2015, the
District Collector disqualified the petitioners from
holding the membership of the two Grampanchayats (one
in each petition) for having failed to submit the
account of election expenses within a period of 30
days from the date of declaration of election result
in the required format along with supporting
affidavit. As a consequence of the same, the
petitioners in both the petitions also stood
disqualified for contesting election of the
Grampanchayat for a period of 05 years from the date
of the disqualification order i.e. 06th January 2015.

¶36

04.Consequenttothepetitioners'

¶37

disqualification, the petitioners had filed appeals
from the two orders dated 06th January 2015 of the
District Collector to the Addl. Divisional
Commissioner in terms of Section 16 of the Act.

¶38

05.On 08th April 2015, the Addl. Divisional
Commissioner by the two impugned order dismissed the
appeals of the petitioners from the orders of
District Collector in respect of Grampanchayat of
Mahatpuri and Bhambarwadi. The impugned orders hold
that the petitioners had not submitted the election
expenditure as required within the time of 30 days in
the required format along with supporting affidavit.

¶39

06.On 10th April 2015, the petitioners filed
Writ Petition No. 4193 of 2015 relating to Mahatpuri
Grampanchayat. By an interim order dated 20th April
2015, pending admission, this Court refused to stay
the elections as declared by the Election
Commission's programme dated 30th March 2015.
However, respondent no.02 - State Election Commission
was restrained from publishing results of the
elections held to Grampanchayat of Mahatpuri. On
20th April 2015, the petitioners filed Writ Petition
No. 4809 of 2015 in respect of Bhambarwadi
Grampanchayat.

¶40

07.Mr. M.P. Kale, learned Counsel appearing in
support of both the petitions, invites my attention
to Section 14B of the Act which reads as under :-

¶41

(6)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809

¶42

of 2015

¶43

" Disqualification by State election Commission . - (1) If the State election Commission is satisfied that a person, -

¶44

(a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and

¶45

(b) has no good reason or justification for such failure,

¶46

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 date of this order.

¶47

(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. "

¶48

On the basis of the aforesaid provision, it is
submitted that there is a discretion in the State
Election Commission whether to disqualify the
petitioners from holding the electoral post and also
from contesting the Grampanchayat elections for a
period of 05 years from the date of disqualification.
Thus, in the present facts, the discretion should
have been exercised in favour of the petitioners and
they should not have been disqualified or debarred
from contesting elections for a period of 05 years
from the date of disqualification. In support of his
submission, he emphasized the use of the word 'may'
in Section 14B of the Act. Secondly, Mr. Kale
submits that the order has been passed in breach of
principles of natural justice as no sufficient time
was made available to the petitioners to file their

¶49

(7)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809

¶50

of 2015

¶51

election expenses.

¶52

08.So far as first submission is concerned, it
is undisputed position that the petitioners had
failed to lodge account of their election expenses
within the stipulated time and in the manner required
by the Election Commission i.e. in particular format
supported by an affidavit. The petitioners have not
offered any reason or justification for having failed
to comply with the mandate of Section 14B of lodging
election expenses with the State Election Commission
within the time and in the manner required by the
State Election Commission. Consequently, the
disqualification follows. This is particularly in
the context of failure to offer any reason or
justification for not complying with the mandatory
requirement of Section 14B of the Act. Therefore, no
question of exercising discretion in favour of the
petitioner can arise.

¶53

09.The word 'may' used in Section 14B of the
Act only suggests that there is a discretion in the
Election Commission to the extent of not
disqualifying a person, if it is satisfied with the
reason or justification given by the petitioner for
not filing the election expenses within the time and
in the manner required by the State Election
Commission. In the present facts, admittedly, the
petitioners have not given any reason or
justification for failure to lodge an account of
election expenses within the time and in the manner

¶54

(8)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809
of 2015

¶55

required by the State election Commission. Thus, no
fault can be found with the two impugned orders dated
06th January 2015 and 08th April 2015 in each of the
two petitions.

¶56

10.The second contention raised by Mr. Kale,
that no sufficient opportunity was given to the
petitioner, stands belied by the fact that the order
records that the notices were issued to the
petitioners on 17th December 2014. The hearing
consequent to the notices dated 17th December 2014
was given to the petitioners on 24th December 2014
and 26th December 2014. Consequently, as held by the
Addl. Commissioner, the plea of insufficient
opportunity to represent their cases is not supported
by the facts on record.

¶57

11.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the
elections in respect of which the expenses had to be
filed were held in the year 2012. The obligation
under the Act is to submit election expenses to the
State Election Commission within a period of 30 days
and in the manner prescribed by the State Election
Commission. The petitioners had failed to comply the
requirement from 2012 to 2014. The petitioners
cannot raise a plea of insufficient time to file
their election expenses. This is as the breach had
already taken place much prior to the issuance of
notice dated 17th December 2014 calling upon the
petitioners to show cause why they should not be
disqualified on account of non-compliance of

¶58

(9)W.P. Nos. 04193 & 04809
of 2015

¶59

mandatory provisions of Section 14B of the Act.

¶60

12.In the above view, no fault can be found
with the impugned orders dated 06th January 2015 and
08th April 2015, passed by the District Collector and
in appeal by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad, in the two petitions.

¶61

13.Accordingly, both the petitions are
dismissed. The interim order dated 20th April 2015
(in Writ Petition No. 04193 of 2015) which restrained
respondent no.02 - State Election Commission from
declaring the election results, also stands vacated.

¶62

...........

¶63

puranik / WP4809.15

Mangal Prakash Mulgir and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Prakash Mulgir and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Shafi Abdul Rehaman Pinjari and Another Vs Dilip Ramanlal Kabra

Gayabai Ganpati Sarode Vs Datta Ananda Sarode and Others

Padmansinh Atmaram Wadje Vs the District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies Nanded and Others

Anita Santosh Sonawane Vs Walmik Rangnath Desai and Others

Shankar Shridhar Raut Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Mallikarjun Gangadharappa Ankalkote and Another Vs M/S Goyal Trading Company through Power of Attorney Holder D M Agarwal