Bombay High Court
Shri Nandakumar Sharad Parab vs Shri Nhanu Sahadeo Savant And Ors on 5 August, 2015
Bench: R.M. Savant
wp-8993-14-(909)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8993 OF 2014
Nandakumar Sharad Parab )
Age 48 years, Occupation Agri )
Residing at Tulas, Taluka Vengurla )
District Sindhudurg ) ..Petitioner
Vs.
1 Shri Nhanu Sahadeo Savant )
Age Adult, Occupation - )
Residing at Tulas, Taluka Vengurla )
District Sindhudurg ig )
2 The Chief Executive Officer )
Zila Parishad Sindhudurg )
Sindhudurgnagari, Oros, )
Taluka Kudal, Dist Sindhudurg )
3 The Block Development Officer )
Panchayat Samitee Vengurla, )
District - Sindhudurg ) ..Respondents
Mr. Milind Parab i/b Milind Parab & Associates for the Petitioner
Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the Respondent
No.1
Mr. R. D. Rane for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
Mr. S.D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent No.4
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
mmj 1 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 27-8-2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by
which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein came to be
allowed and resultantly the order dated 18-2-2014 passed by the Additional
Collector, Sindhudurg, came to be set aside.
3 The Petitioner contested the elections to the Grampanchayat Tulas
Talluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurg, which elections were held on 26-11-
2012. The Petitioner was elected in the said elections. The Petitioner therefore
came to be elected as Upa Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat on 24-12-2012.
Prior to the elections of the Grampanchayat, the Petitioner who is a Civil
Contractor was awarded the contract of repairs to the residential quarters of
the drivers attached to the primary health center. The work under the said
contract was to be completed within 3 months of the award of the contract, the
Petitioner it seems informed the Grampanchayat on 24-5-2012 that the work is
complete. It appears that on inspection being carried out, it was found that
work was not complete and accordingly an extension came to be granted to the
Petitioner up to 15-3-2013 to complete the work. It is pursuant to the said
extension that the work was recommenced and in terms of the measurement
book which was maintained, the work was completed on 12-3-2013. The
Petitioner has been paid for the said work an amount of Rs.1,47,104/- on 14-6-
2013, which the Petitioner has accepted.
mmj 2 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
4 The Respondent No.1 in view of the fact that the Petitioner was
awarded the contract by the Grampanchayat and in respect of which the work
was completed on 12-3-2013, filed an application for disqualification of the
Petitioner as a member of the Grampanchayat invoking Section 14(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The said Section 14(1)(g) for the sake of
ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:
"14. Disqualification:-
(1)No person shall be a member of a Panchayat
continue as such, who :-
(a) ............
(b) ............
(c) ............
(d) ............
(e) ............
(f) ............
(g):- has directly or indirectly, by himself or his
partner, any 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."
The Respondent No.1 in his Dispute Application averred the facts
which have been stated hereinabove.
5 On behalf of the Petitioner a defence was taken that the work was
mmj 3 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
awarded prior to the elections taking place to the Grampanchayat i.e. 26-11-
2012 and in fact the said work was also completed prior to the elections.
However, the extension was granted by the Grampanchayat for the work which
was commenced prior to the elections and the payment having been received
for the said work, the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) could not be invoked. The
Additional Collector, Sindhudurg before whom the Dispute Application was
filed, held that the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) are not attracted in the
present case, the defence taken by the Petitioner commended acceptance to the
Additional Collector and the gist of the reasoning of the additional Collector
was that since the work was awarded prior to the elections and since the
payment was in respect of the said work, the Petitioner could not be
disqualified by having recourse to the said provisions. The Additional Collector
accordingly by order dated 18-2-2014 dismissed the said application.
6 The Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the said order dated 18-2-2014
filed an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The
Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has by the impugned order dated
27-8-2014 has allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 and set aside
the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 18-2-2014. The gist of the
reasoning of the Additional Commissioner as can be seen from the impugned
order is that the extension of time to complete the said work was granted after
the Petitioner became a member of the Grampanchayat pursuant to the
mmj 4 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
election held on 26-11-2012. The Additional Commissioner held that the work
was also completed in terms of the measurement book on 12-3-2013 I,e, much
after the elections were held and that the Petitioner has also been paid on 14-
6-2013. The Additional Commissioner accordingly set aside the order order
passed by the Additional Collector dated 18-2-2014 and in turn allowed the
Dispute Application filed by the Respondent No.1.
7 The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Mr. Parab would
seek to reiterate the case of the Petitioner before the authorities below namely
that the work was awarded to the Petitioner prior to the elections to the
Grampanchayat and therefore merely because the extension was granted after
the elections and payment was made to the Petitioner also after the elections,
the same would not result in the disqualification of the Petitioner under
Section 14(1)(g). This was the principal contention urged on behalf of the
Petitioner.
8 Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Mr.
Khandeparkar and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2
and 3 Mr. Rane would support the impugned order. It was the submission of
the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that after the elections that
took place on 26-11-2012, the Petitioner ought to have disassociated himself
from the said work, as in view of the extension granted to the Petitioner to
mmj 5 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
complete the work by 15-3-2013, the Petitioner was in fact not eligible to
contest the elections in terms of Section 14(1)(g). The Learned Counsel would
contend that though the work was awarded prior to the elections, the said fact
would be of no avail having regard to the fact that the extension was granted
and was for a period during which the Petitioner was a member of the
Grampanchayat and in fact the Upa Sarpanch and therefore the order passed
by the Appellate Authority could not be faulted with.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have
considered the rival contentions. The question that arises for consideration in
the present Petition is as to whether the Petitioner stands disqualified on the
touchstone of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. The said provision is a part of
the disqualifications which are contained in Section 14. The disqualification
under the said provisions is for being a member of the Grampanchayat on the
ground that the member has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any
share or interest in any work done by the order of the Panchayat or in any
contract with or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. In
the instant case, it is an undisputed position that the Petitioner was granted the
contract for repairs to the residential quarters of the drivers of the primary
health center, run by the Grampanchayat. Hence the Petitioner was having a
direct interest in the said work awarded by the Grampanchayat. In so far as the
said work is concerned, it is an undisputed position that the said work was
mmj 6 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
awarded prior to the elections of the Grampanchayat which took place on 26-
11-2012. However, an extension was granted for the completion of the said
work up to 15-3-2013, by a resolution passed by the Grampanchayat. The work
has been completed as per the measurement book on 12-3-2013 and the
Petitioner has been paid for the said work an amount of Rs.1,47,104/- on 14-6-
2013. Hence the extension as well as the completion of the work and the
payment has indisputedly been made after the Petitioner became a member of
the Grampanchayat. The object behind the said Section 14(1)(g) is to see to it
that there is no conflict of interest between the business interest of a member
of the Grampanchayat and the functioning of the Grampanchayat. In the
instant case as the facts disclose the decision to grant extension to complete the
work was taken by the Grampanchayat and for a period when the Petitioner
was a member of the Grampanchayat and in fact the Upa Sarpanch, as also the
payment was made to the Petitioner when he was a member. Hence this is a
case where one can say that there is a conflict of interest as it can be said that a
decision has been taken by the Grampanchayat of which the Petitioner is a
part, which decision furthers the business interests of the Petitioner, the same
therefore strikes at the very root of the democratic principle enshrined in the
said provision i.e. Section 14(1)(g).
10 In my view therefore, the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity for this
mmj 7 of 8
wp-8993-14-(909)
Court to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged with no
order as to costs.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
mmj 8 of 8
