Dismissed¶34

Shri. Rupesh S/O Sahadeo Wanve v. the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC30 Jun 2025WP/2636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court (WP No. 2636/2024, decided 18-09-2025, Judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar): disqualification of six elected gram panchayat members (Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki), Ramtek, Nagpur) sought under s.14(B)/14-B, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959, for late submission of election-expense accounts; accounts filed 10.02.2021 with the Gram Panchayat office and forwarded to the Additional Collector, Nagpur on 11.07.2022; Collector's rejection of disqualification application upheld as free from perversity; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed, rule discharged, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition failed and was dismissed, Rule stood discharged and no costs were awarded. ¶34

Shri. Rupesh S/O Sahadeo Wanve vs the Additional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition failed and was dismissed, Rule stood discharged and no costs were awarded.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 to 7, elected Members of Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki), incurred disqualification under Section 14(B)/14-B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for failure to submit their account of election expenses within the stipulated time to the concerned Authority. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had in fact submitted the accounts of election expenses on 10.02.2021, within the time stipulated, to the Office of the Gram Panchayat; there was thus compliance on their part with the requirement to submit the accounts of election expenses within the time stipulated.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Even though the accounts of election expenses were finally received by the Office of respondent no.1 beyond the time, respondent no.1 accepted the justification and passed the impugned order.

¶31

Key takeaways

Compliance under Section 14(B) of the Act of 1959 can be inferred on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (nobody's case being that the accounts before the Gram Panchayat varied from those before respondent no.1) and, in view of the acceptance of justification by respondent no.1, no disqualification is attracted.ratio¶31
No case is made out to conclude that the respondents incurred disqualification under Section 14-B of the Act of 1959; the democratically elected representatives' compliance with the requirement to submit accounts of election expenses is reflected from the record.ratio¶33
There is no perversity with the impugned order and hence no indulgence is required under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2024; decided 18.09.2025. Petitioner Rupesh Sahadeo Wanve, a voter, challenged the Additional Collector, Nagpur's order dated 29.01.2024 rejecting his application to disqualify respondent Nos. 2 to 7 — elected Members of Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki) in the 2021 elections — under Section 14(B)/14-B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for failure to submit accounts of election expenses within the stipulated time. Held: the six Members had in fact submitted their election-expense accounts on 10.02.2021, within the stipulated period, to the Office of the Gram Panchayat, whence they reached the Collector beyond time (11.07.2022 per the submissions); the Collector accepted the justification for the delayed transmission, compliance under Section 14(B) could therefore be inferred, and no disqualification was attracted. The impugned order disclosed no perversity warranting indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; no costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9790

¶2

1809WP2636-24.odt 1 Judgment

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2024

¶5

Rupesh Sahadeo Wanve, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o Shioni (Bhondki), Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Additional Collector, Nagpur, Collector Office Compound, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶8

Bhojraj Namdeo Dhuvadhappar, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Up-Sarpanch.

¶9

Vijay Gulab Bhure, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Sarpanch.

¶10

Chandrakala Ramesh Thote, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Member.

¶11

Nilima shrawan Aahake, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Member.

¶12

Nos.2 to 5 are R/o Kirnapur, Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki), Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

¶13

Pooja Ashwin Thakre, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Member.

¶14

Gopal Jagan Golange, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Member.

¶15

Nos.6 and 7 are R/o Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki), Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

¶16

The Tahasildar, Ramtek, Tahsil Compound, Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

¶17

The Gat Gram Panchayat, Shioni (Bhondki), Gat Gram Panchayat Office, Shioni (Bhondki), Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur. RESPONDENTS

¶18

Shri Bhojraj Dhandale, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Autkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 8. Shri T.J. Patil and Shri S.S. Ansari, counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 7. _

¶19

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18 , 2025

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

¶22

of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

1809WP2636-24.odt 2 Judgment

¶24

The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.1-Additional Collector, Nagpur whereby his application seeking disqualification of the respondent nos.2 to 7 as Members of the Gram Panchayat came to be rejected.

¶25

The elections of Gram Panchayat Shioni (Bhondki) were conducted in the year 2021 and the respondent nos.2 to 7 alongwith others came to be elected as Members of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner herein claiming to be a voter, filed an application before the respondent no.1 thereby praying for disqualification of the respondent nos.2 to 7 for failure to submit account of election expenses within the time stipulated. It is claimed that the respondent nos.2 to 7 incurred disqualification on the said count under Section 14(B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’). The proceedings were contested by the respondent nos.2 to 7 and they pointed out that the accounts of election expenses were submitted by them within the stipulated time to the Office of the Gram Panchayat which in turn submitted the same to the respondent no.1, which was the concerned Authority. After considering the submissions of both the parties, the respondent no.1 passed the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order by this petition.

¶26

The counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order does not take into consideration the fact that the accounts of election expenses were not submitted to the concerned Authority within the time stipulated, but has wrongly given importance to the fact of submission of the accounts of election expenses, although within the time, to the Gram Panchayat itself. He submitted that since the accounts of the election

¶27

1809WP2636-24.odt

¶28

3 Judgment

¶29

expenses were not submitted to the respondent no.1 within the time, the respondent nos.2 to 7 ought to have been declared as disqualified.

¶30

Opposing the writ petition, the counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 8 vehemently submitted that the election expenses were submitted within the time of one month from the date of election initially i.e. on 10.02.2021 which were in turn submitted to the Competent Authority on 11.07.2022. They submitted that the respondent nos.2 to 7 have given sufficient reasons and justification and the same was found convincing and acceptable to the respondent no.1. It is submitted that no perversity is pointed out with the impugned order.

¶31

It has to be noted that the respondent nos.2 to 7 have infact submitted the accounts of the election expenses on 10.02.2021 within the time stipulated to the Office of the Gram Panchayat and thus there is compliance on the part of the respondent nos.2 to 7 to submit the accounts of the election expenses within the time stipulated. Even if the accounts of the election expenses were finally received by the Office of the respondent no.1 beyond the time, it is crucial to note that the respondent no.1 has accepted the justification and passed the impugned order. It is nobody’s case that the accounts of the election expenses which were submitted before the Gram Panchayat varied with the one submitted before the respondent no.1 and as such compliance under Section 14(B) of the Act of 1959 on the part of the respondent nos.2 to 7 can be inferred. As such, in view of the acceptance of justification by the respondent no.1, no disqualification is attracted.

¶32

1809WP2636-24.odt 4 Judgment

¶33

The respondent nos.2 to 7 are the democratically elected representatives and the compliance on their part with the requirement to submit the accounts of the election expenses is reflected from the record. No case is made out to conclude that the respondents have incurred disqualification under Section 14-B of the Act of 1959. There is no perversity with the impugned order and hence, no indulgence is required under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No costs.

¶35

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶36

APTE

¶37

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 26/09/2025 10:22:09

Shri. Rupesh S/O Sahadeo Wanve v. the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rupesh S/O Sahadeo Wanve v. the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jsw Steel Coated Products Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Senior Manager, Shashwat P. Kaushik and Anr. vs Shri. Rajesh S/O. Gajananrao Nagulwar

Mrs. Priti W/O. Nitin Asode and Anr. vs Nitin Namdeorao Asode

Alok Madhukar Ghate vs Swati Sudhakar Bawane

Jagdish Shankarlal Mehra (Dead), Thr. Lrs. vs Honble Minister, Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Ors.

Ashish Babarao Sardar vs the District Registrar Money Lending, Akola and Dist.Dy. Registrar Co-Op. Societies, Akola and Ors.

Arjun S/O. Gulabrao Dorle vs Collector, Nagpur and Others