Bombay High Court
Amol Ramesh Dehankar vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 16 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9265
1609WP4480-24.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4480 OF 2024
Amol Ramesh Dehankar, Aged about 40 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
R/o Patapangara, Tah. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Additional Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Pata Pangara,
Tah. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal.
4. Gurudev Dattarao Petkule, aged about adult,
Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o Patapangra,
Tah. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.A. Zade, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.V. Narale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 18.06.2024
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and
the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal
thereby disqualifying the petitioner for the post of Member of Gram
Panchayat Patapangara.
1609WP4480-24.odt 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was disqualified under the provisions of 14(1)(g) of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that the
petitioner has availed benefit of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana sponsored
by the Central Government and implemented through the Block
Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking benefit of
the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana cannot amount to incurring
disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 since the
scheme is not sponsored or introduced or implemented by the Panchayat
itself. By inviting attention to the Government letter dated 08.06.2023
(Annexure-G) issued to Chief Executive Officers of all the Zilla Parishads
in the State of Maharashtra, it is pointed out that this letter has clarified
that a Member or Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat does not
incur disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 merely
because he is the beneficiary under the Gharkul Scheme unless such
scheme is introduced by the Gram Panchayat. In view of this letter, it is
submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to have incurred any
disqualification.
5. It is also submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ
petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Nandabai Ramesh
Wakude Versus Shivprasad Waman Wakude & Others [Writ Petition
No.7294 of 2014] decided on 11.03.2015 and in view of the position of
law laid down therein, the impugned orders are unsustainable.
1609WP4480-24.odt 3 Judgment
6. Opposing the writ petition, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not raised these
contentions before the authorities and as such, the same cannot be
entertained at this stage.
7. As regards the controversy involved in the matter, it is clear that the
controversy is covered by the judgment in Nandabai Ramesh Wakude
(supra). Paragraph 5 thereof is reproduced below :-
"5. The Gharkul Scheme is not the Scheme, which is
sponsored or implemented by the "Panchayat", as defined under
Section 2(14) of the said Act. It is the Scheme prepared by the
Social Welfare Department of the State Government. The
Scheme is being implemented through the Block Development
Officer of the "Panchayat Samiti", constituted under Section 57 of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961,
which is an independent statutory authority. The "Panchayat" of
which the petitioner was the Sarpanch, is constituted under
Section 10 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and not
under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It has nothing to do with such
Scheme, except to prepare the list of persons eligible to get the
benefit under the Scheme, and to forward it to the Block
Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. It is, therefore, not
the work done by or under the orders passed by the "Panchayat",
as defined under Section 2(14) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act. The provisions of disqualification under Section
14(1)(g) of the said Act is, therefore, not attracted. The
authorities below have committed an error in holding that the
petitioner is disqualified under the said provision to occupy the
post of Sarpanch. The orders impugned cannot, therefore, be
sustained and the same need to be quashed and set aside."
8. A perusal of impugned orders shows that the only reason for
disqualification of the petitioner is the benefit under Gharkul Scheme. In
view of the letter dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Government (referred
1609WP4480-24.odt 4 Judgment
above) and for the reasons recorded in the judgment referred above, the
impugned orders are unsustainable in law and the writ petition needs to
be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed:-
I. The order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and the order dated
06.02.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal are hereby
quashed and set aside.
II. The petitioner is restored back to the post of Member of Gram
Panchayat Patapangara.
9. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2025 14:38:42
