Shri. Thorat Prabhakar Subrao Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. and Ors.

¶1

Digitally signed by PRASHANTVILASRANE PRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2021.10.18 19:43:20 +0530

1

13wp6833-19

pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6833 of 2019

¶8

Mr.Thorat Prabhakar Subrao… Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents

¶9

Dr.Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.C.D.Mali, AGP for the State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

Mr.Sandeep M.Phatak, for Respondent no.3.

¶12

CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 12th October, 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.Heard Dr.Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Phatak, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Mr.Mali, learned
AGP for State-Respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶15

2.Respondent no.3 had contested the Grampanchayat elections of
Village Baj, Taluka Jat, District Sangli, held on 16 October 2017. The
petitioner complained before the first authority namely the Collector, of
respondent No.3 being disqualified on the ground that respondent no.3
was a defaulter within the meaning of the provisions of Section 14(1)(h)
of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act,1959 (for short 'the Act'). The
Collector dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. An appeal was filed by
the petitioner against such dismissal before the appellate authority-the
Commissioner, who dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by the impugned
order dated 12 February 2019.

2

13wp6833-19

pvr

3.At the outset the provision under which the petitioner alleged
respondent no.3’s disqualification, is required to be noted which read
thus:-

¶20

“14. Disqualifications.-(1) No person shall be a member of a
panchayat continue as such, who-

¶21

(h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat or the
Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which
the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for
the purpose is duly served on him; or ”

¶22

4.In asserting that respondent no.3 is a defaulter under the above
provision, the petitioner pointed out a certificate dated 29 September
2017 issued by the Gao Kamgar Talathi of Village Baj, Taluka Jat, which
according to him, pointed out that the husband of respondent no.3 had
to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.3,53,773/- to the State
Government. The petitioner also relied upon an order dated 25 April
2016 issued by the Tahasildar, confirming a demand for an amount of
Rs.3,53,773/- against the husband of respondent no.3 in regard to the
sand excavated by him for which a cheque was deposited by him,
however the same was dishonoured. The collector did not accept
such contention as urged by the petitioner on the ground that such
outstanding could not be considered to be any tax or fees due to the
Panchayat or Zilla Parishad and secondly it was also not a demand
raised against respondent no.3 but it was against the husband of
respondent no.3. Such findings were confirmed by the appellate
authority namely the Commissioner who has passed the impugned order
dated 12 February 2019 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.

¶23

5.Dr.Warunjikar in assailing the concurrent findings of both the
authorities against the petitioner has made the following submissions:-
It is submitted that Section 14(1)(h)of the Act when it prescribes
payment of tax or tax due to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad needs to be

3

13wp6833-19

pvr

interpreted to include within its ambit also, payment due to the State
Government. It is submitted that even payment which was to be made
by the husband of respondent no.3 would be required to be read into
such payment. As according to him, the Gram Panchayats or Zilla
Parishads are routinely receiving funds from the State Government or
the Central Government and ultimately once such funds are received
from the consolidated fund of either the State or the Central
Government, then according to Dr.Warunjikar there is no distinction
between any amounts being payable to the State Government and the
ones payable to the Panchayat or Zilla Parishad, by such logic any
payment due to any State Government is the payment due to Gram
Panchayat or Zilla Parishad.

¶28

6.I am afraid that such an interpretation of Section 14(1)(h) of the
Act cannot be accepted. This would amount to reading something in the
said provision what is not provided for. The payment due to the State
Government in the present context, cannot be read as the payment due
to Grampanchayat or Zilla Parishad. The legislature in framing the
provision, has clearly distinguished the payment such as fees or tax
payable to Grampanchayat or Zilla Parishad, from any payment to be
made to any other Government bodies and to the State or the Central
Government by not including the later within the provisions.

¶29

7.In regard to the contention that as the amounts are received from
the State Government or the Central Government from its consolidated
funds by the Grampanchayat and Zilla Parishad, any amount payable to
the State Government needs to mean to be an amount payable to
Grampanchayat or Zilla Parishad, also cannot be accepted. It would be
too far fetched to include such alien attributes to be read in sub-section
1(h) of Section 14 of the Act. The Court would certainly not do anything

4

13wp6833-19

pvr

to damage the plain and clear language and meaning, the provision
depicts. In any event it cannot be overlooked that the amounts which
were payable to the State Government were not by respondent no.3 but
by her husband which is again a facet falling outside the provisions of
Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

¶34

8.For the above reasons, the findings recorded by the Collector and
the Appellate Authorities are appropriate. I find no merit in this petition.
The petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

 (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

Shri. Thorat Prabhakar Subrao v. State of Maharashtra Thru Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Thorat Prabhakar Subrao v. State of Maharashtra Thru Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. and Ors.

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

Khanderao Pandurang Sarak and Anr. Vs Dagadu Dhondi Venupure and Ors.

Manoj Lalchand Yadav Vs the President / Secretary, Umadevi Education Trust and Ors.

Khanderao Pandurang Sarak and Anr. Vs Dagadu Dhondi Venupure and Ors.

Kasim Mahommad Mahajan and Ors. Vs Babalal @ Ahmadkhan Sultan Mahajan (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors.

Roseline Fedrick Dsouza Vs Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban and Others

Devram Savleram Mundhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Chief Secretary and Ors.