The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Mangesh S. Patil while hearing a writ petition held that when the legislature in its wisdom has in a plain language vested a power either to remove the disqualification or to reduce its quantum, it cannot be said that it even intended to confer the power to enhance or increase the period of disqualification. Any other interpretation would run afoul to the legislative intent and cannot be permitted to be done.
Facts
The petitioner Gulabrao contested the election of Panchayat Samiti which was held under the Z.P. Act on but failed. As per the provisions of Section 15B, he failed to furnish election expenses for the two days i.e., the date of voting and the date of counting of the votes. He furnished some explanation to the respondent Collector inter alia claiming it to be a sufficient ground for his inability to furnish the expenses. The Collector disqualified him for a period of 5 years under Sub Section 1 of Section 15B of the Z.P. Act. The matter went upto the Supreme Court which upheld the orders of the Collector to the extent of Gulabrao having incurred disqualification under Section 15B (1), by applying doctrine of proportionality, it struck down the quantum of disqualification of 5 years and directed the respondent Collector to pass an appropriate order regarding period of disqualification. Gulabrao and the other petitioner Ritesh then appeared before the Collector who reduced the period of disqualification to two years.
In the meantime the petitioner Gulabrao filed a nomination form for being elected as a Sarpanch of village Mukti under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 (hereinafter the V.P.Act). Respondent Pradip raised an objection to his nomination, but it was turned down and Gulabrao got elected as a Sarpanch.
Procedural History
The election was challenged by respondent Pradip and Ritesh and was declared his election as void ab initio in view of the disqualification incurred by him under Section 15B (1) of the Z.P. Act. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court which remanded the matter to Collector for taking a decision as to the period of disqualification.
Contentions made
It was submitted for the petitioner that as per Section 15B of the Z.P. Act the powers to decide on the question of disqualification under Sub Section 1 have been delegated by State Election Commission to the Collector whereas the power to remove such disqualification or reduce its period have been delegated to the Divisional Commissioner. As per Sub Section 2, the Divisional Commissioner either can remove the disqualification or “reduce” its period, which clearly indicates that the legislature did not intend and vest him with a power to increase the period of disqualification or even to disqualify a person when under Sub Section 1 the Collector has not recorded the disqualification. Such exercise of power which did not vest in him, was clearly illegal and was liable to be quashed and set aside.
Learned AGP for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the powers to enhance the period of disqualification are inherent with the Divisional Commissioner and are not limited to the extent of removing disqualification or reduction of its period.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined that the Divisional Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction, which was not vested in him and consequently, the impugned order being clearly illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. It observed that:
“It is trite that the provisions of a statute are to be interpreted primarily by giving full effect to the plain language. It is only if the language tends to create some confusion or is open to some interpretation that the other principles of interpretation of statute are to be resorted to. When the legislature in its wisdom has in a plain language vested a power under Sub Section 2 either to remove the disqualification or to reduce its quantum, as is imposed under Sub Section 1, it cannot be said that it even intended to confer the power to enhance or increase the period of disqualification. Any other interpretation would run afoul to the legislative intent and cannot be permitted to be done Without there being any power vested in the respondent Divisional Commissioner, as if he was sitting in appeal, he has, by the impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside the order of the Collector and has enhanced the period of disqualification from two to three years.”
It observed that the submission that Gulabrao was not qualified having once been disqualified to contest the election of Sarpanch and cannot be reinstated would be clearly contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court. Since the period of two years of disqualification had ended even before the petitioner filed nomination for the post of Sarpanch under the V.P.Act, as on the date of his nomination and election, he was not running any disqualification.
Judgment
The bench held that petitioner Gulabrao shall be entitled to complete the term as a Sarpanch of Mukti village Panchayat.
Case Name: Gulabrao Ananda Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO. 12276 OF 2021
Bench: Justice Mangesh S. Patil
Decided on: 4th December 2021
Read Judgment ;
source ;https://www.latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments