However, he was disqualified from this position by an order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, which came in a petition filed by respondent no.3, who had lost the Zilla Parishad election. Thereafter, the Zilla Parishad, Dhule, of which the appellant was a member, granted administrative sanction to the project on 05.06.2020. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 62, if any Councillor during the term of his office — xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx [(2) If any question whether a vacancy has occurred under this section is raised either by the Commissioner suo motu or on an application made to him by any person in that behalf, the Commissioner shall decide the question [as far as possible] within ninety days from the date of receipt of such application; and his decision thereon shall be final.
It was also observed that there was no evidence of the appellant’s son having been awarded work orders from any other blocks falling under Dhule Zilla Parishad, and thus there was a prima facie inference of misuse, sufficient for disqualifying the appellant under Section 16(1)(i) of the said Act. the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ VP Act ’); (b) Even assuming the applicability of the said Act, the language of Section 16(1)(i) indicates that disqualification can occur only if the work was undertaken by the Zilla Parishad itself. The Executing Engineer, Zilla Parishad’s communication dated 28.10.2021 also stated that the road was being developed pursuant to the order of the Zilla Parishad, which was also the agency that had disbursed the funds. On 08.10.2021, when the appellant again requested for further time on account of advocate’s illness, although the appellant himself was physically present, the Divisional Commissioner had fairly come to the conclusion that the appellant had been granted multiple opportunities and thus his written statement should be treated as his submissions.
The payment for the work was also made to the appellant’s son by the Gram Panchayat, although it was formally sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/selection-and-appointment-of-judicial-officers-in-himachal-pradesh/
The Zilla Parishad is stated not to have directly paid for the work undertaken by the appellant’s son. With this background, it was urged that the concerned sub-section (i) of Section 16(1) of the said Act was worded with a wide ambit so as to encapsulate three categories, i.e., work done (a) by order of the Zilla Parishad; (b) in any contract with the Zilla Parishad; or (c) by or on behalf of the Zilla Parishad.
In the given factual scenario, it was also urged that the appellant was elected in January 2020, whereas his son was registered as a contractor with the Zilla Parishad, Dhule on 20.02.2020.
Here, this Court had distinguished Gulam Yasin’s case on the premise that it did not pertain to the disqualification of a member of the local self-government on the ground of direct or indirect pecuniary benefit.
Xavier’s case was of greater relevance as it dealt with Section 10 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was analogous to Section 16(1)(i) of the said Act. All eventualities where the councillor can be said to have any financial connection with the work of the Zilla Parishad were sought to be included, with the object of discouraging the practice of financial patronage that is inherently beneficial to the elected representatives. Gulam Yasin was concerned with the interpretation of the Section 15(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, which disqualified a candidate from standing for election if he had ‘an interest’ in the Municipal Committee.
Xavier, this Court was examining a situation where the appellant was a Panchayat member who was disqualified as her husband had entered into a contract with the said Panchayat for the collection of market fee. The appellant had attempted to justify this situation by claiming that his son was registered as a contractor soon after the appellant’s election as he had just completed his studies.
The appellant had a greater responsibility as a father to make sure that his son does not enter into a contract that is sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad itself.
The Divisional Commissioner thus rightly treated the appellant’s written submissions as his defence.
April 17, 2023.
Case Title: VIRENDRASING Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (2023 INSC 372)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001715-001715 / 2023
