RAMDAS DATTATRAYA KHOSE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Disqualification of Sarpanch under Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act: Commercial Water Connection and the Absence of Direct Monetary Benefit.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:34177
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959; Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959; National Jal Jivan Mission; Right to Information Act
- Facts: The petitioner, an elected member and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Padalidariya, was disqualified by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. This disqualification stemmed from allegations that the petitioner had taken an illegal commercial water connection to supply water to his Trimurti Industries Padalidariya, utilizing a government scheme intended for village water supply. Respondents 7 to 9 had filed an application before the Collector, Ahilyanagar, seeking the petitioner's disqualification.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the Divisional Commissioner's order via a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, after the Collector initially dismissed the disqualification application.
- Issue: Did the petitioner's actions of obtaining a commercial water connection, allegedly misusing a government scheme intended for village water supply, constitute a disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959? Specifically, did the petitioner derive a direct monetary benefit from the Panchayat through this action?
- Holding: No, the High Court held that the petitioner's actions did not warrant disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. The Court quashed and set aside the Divisional Commissioner's order.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 14(1)(g) contemplates disqualification only when an elected member has a direct or indirect share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or in any contract with, by, or on behalf of, or employment with or under the Panchayat, resulting in a direct monetary benefit. In this case, the petitioner deposited and paid amounts to the Panchayat for the water connection. The Court distinguished the facts from cases like Janardhan Pawar, where a direct pecuniary interest was received from the Panchayat. The Court found that the petitioner's actions, while potentially constituting misconduct, did not fall within the specific ambit of Section 14(1)(g) because there was no monetary benefit received from the Panchayat. The Court also relied on the case of Nilesh, which stated that disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) relates to work done when the elected member has a direct or indirect share or interest in any work done by order of the panchayat.
🔒 For Members Only