1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the tenability of the proceedings before the Collector under section 14-B of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) for disqualification of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have failed to lodge the election expenses within the prescribed limit. By the impugned order dated 16-4-2013, the Collector, Amravati, has held that he has jurisdiction under section 14-B of the said Act to entertain, try and decide the question of disqualification of the petitioner from the membership of Gram Panchayat.
3. The respondent No. 4 - Nitin Manikrao Dhole, filed an application under section 14-B of the said Act before the District Collector, Amravati and registered as Application No. 1.BVP14(B)/Chincholi (Bk.) 12-13. The respondent No. 4 sought disqualification of the petitioners as the members of Gram Panchayat, for failure to lodge the election expenses within prescribed limit.
4. The question raised is of the competency of the Collector to entertain, try and decide the application for disqualification under section 14-B of the said Act and to further pass an order under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the said Act to declare vacancy in the posts of members, Gram Panchayat, by holding them to be disqualified under Clause (j-4) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act.
5. It is urged by Shri Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless there is an order of the State Election Commission passed under section 14-B of the said Act, the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass an order of disqualification of the petitioner under Clause (j-4) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act in exercise of its power under section 16 of the said Act, and to declare the vacancies in the post of the members, Gram Panchayat.
6. section 14-B of the said Act being relevant, is also reproduced below
“14-B. Disqualification by State Election Commission.— (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person,—
(a) has been failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and
(b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official Gazette declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a member of Panchayat or for contesting an election for being a member for a period of five years from the date of this order.
(2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification.”
Thus, the disqualification under sub-section (1) of section 14-B is one where a person has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, which is alleged against the petitioner. It is the State Election Commission, which is competent to pass an order of disqualification covered by this provision.
7. It is not in dispute that section 10-A of the said Act confers a power upon the State Election Commissioner under sub-section (2) thereof to delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Commission or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Tahsildar. A copy of notification dated 19th November, 2010, is produced on record, issued by the State Election Commission in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of section 10-A, delegating its powers under section 14-B of the said Act upon the Collector of the District. Thus, it is the Collector of the District who is competent to exercise the powers of the State Election Commission under section 14-B of the said Act.
8. The provision of disqualification under Clause (j-4) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act is as under:
“14. Disqualification:— (I) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat continue as such, who—
(j-4) has been disqualified by the State Election Commission under section 14-B;”
Section 16 of the said Act is relevant and it is reproduced below—
“16. Disability from continuing as member:— (1) If any member of a Panchayat,
(a) who is elected or appointed as such, was subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in section 14 at the time of his election or appointment, or
(b) during the term for which he has been elected or appointed incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 14, he shall be disabled from continuing to be a member, and his office shall become vacant.
(2) If any question whether a vacancy has occurred under this section is raised by the Collector suo motu or on an application made to him by any person in that behalf, the Collector shall decide the question as far as possible within sixty days from the date of receipt of such application. Until the Collector decided the question, the member shall not be disabled under sub-section (1) from continuing to be a member. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector may, within a period of fifteen days from the date of such decision, appeal to the State Government, and the orders passed by the State Government in such appeal shall be final:
Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section by the Collector against any member without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
It is the Collector of the District who is competent to pass an order under section 16 of the said Act for disqualification under Clause (j-4) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act and to declare the vacancy.
9. In view of above, the position is that, it is the Collector of the District who is competent to exercise powers under sections 14-B and 16 of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Collector is not competent either to pass an order of disqualification under section 14-B or under Clause (j-4) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act or to declare the vacancy, in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the said Act. No doubt that unless there is an order of disqualification passed under section 14-B, no order of declaration of vacancy under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the said Act can be passed by the Collector. The Collector will have to follow the procedure for disqualification under section 14-B initially and then to exercise its power under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the said Act for declaration of vacancy in accordance with law.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
Comments