Bombay High Court
Jafar Khaja Mainuddin Mulla vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 April, 2026
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2026:BHC-KOL:3804-DB 503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3012 OF 2026
Neminath Bhauso Chowgule ]
Age: 49, Occ.:-Agriculturists ]
R/o- At post, Haroli, Tal-Shirol, ]
District - Kolhapur ]...Petitioner
]
Versus ]
]
1. State Of Maharashtra Through ]
Its Returning Officer Amit Padalkar ]
Incharge Circle Officer, Nandani ]
]
2. Maharashtra State Election Commission ]
Authorized Officer Incharge Talsildar ]
]
3. Mahaveer Balaso Chowgule ]
Age-59 years, Occu- Agriculturists ]
R/o- At post, Haroli, Tal- Shirol, ]
District - Kolhapur ]
]
4. Gram Panchayat, Haroli ]
Through its Gram Sevak ]
Tal- Shirol, District - Kolhapur ]...Respondents
.....
Adv. Manoj Patil a/w Adv. Kalyani Mangave and Adv. Shubham Dhenge,
for Petitioner.
Adv. Shantibhushan Mudgal a/w Yogesh Morbale, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Vikas Mahadeo Mali, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-
State.
.....
ZIP 1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR &
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 27th APRIL, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3 and Mr. V. M. Mali, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 –
State.
2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that
respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat has been served. However, none has
filed appearance for the respondent No.4.
3. In view of the urgency, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing
immediately, as the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 28 th
April 2026.
4. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the
order dated 15th April, 2026 passed by respondent No. 1 – Returning
Officer, holding that the nomination form of respondent No. 3 for the
post of Member of the Gram Panchayat is valid and legal.
5. It is the submission of Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, that Respondent No. 3, having been disqualified under the
provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1959 (for the sake of brevity to be called as the ” said Act”), for the
ZIP 2 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
tenure of 2022-2027, is not qualified to contest the bye-election for the
post of Member which has fallen vacant due to the disqualification of
Respondent No.3. In support of his contention, Mr. Patil, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon Section 13 of the said Act, and
more particularly Section 13(2). He also relies on the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai Versus Additional
Commissioner And Others 1, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others2 and Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade Vs. Additional Commissioner,
Amravati and Others3
6. On the other hand, Mr. Shantibhushan Mudgal, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 3, submits that although Respondent
No.3 has been disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act, and
such disqualification has been confirmed up to the High Court, he is
nevertheless entitled to contest the bye-election for the post which has
fallen vacant on account of his disqualification. He further submits that,
in any event, since his nomination has been accepted, the only remedy
available to the petitioner is to challenge the action of the Returning
Officer in accepting the nomination by filing an Election Petition under
Section 15 of the said Act. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Mudgal,
1 (2018) 18 SCC 196
2 2018(4) Mh.L.J.] 911
3 2017 (1) Mh.L.J.] 79
ZIP 3 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, relied on Judgment
of Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Vinod
Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer And Another 4, on the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchand
Hirachand Kothadiya And Others Vs. District Deputy Collector, Baramati
Division, Poona And Others5 and also on the Judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Amol
Sahebrao Solanke Vs. The Tahsildar And Others6
7. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out
the relevant factual aspects :-
(i) The tenure for which the elections were initially held for the
posts of Members of Gram Panchayat, Haroli, was for the period 2022
to 2027. In the said election, respondent No. 3 – Mahaveer Balaso
Chowgule was elected as a Member.
(ii) The petitioner filed Gram Panchayat Dispute No.16 of 2023
before the Collector, Kolhapur, seeking disqualification of respondent
No.3.
(iii) By order dated 15th May, 2024, the Collector, Kolhapur,
disqualified Respondent No. 3 under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act on
the ground that respondent No. 3 had failed to pay tax within three
months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee was
4 (2003) 4 MhLJ 359
5 (1955) AIR (Bombay) 154
6 (2016) 1 MhLJ 189ZIP 4 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).docdemanded and the bill for the purpose was duly served upon him.
(iv) The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, under Section 16 of the said Act,
and the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 26 th September
2024 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division,
Pune.
(v) The said orders of the Collector, Kolhapur, and Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, were challenged before a
learned Single Judge by filing Writ Petition No.16283 of 2024. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition by upholding the
order of the Collector, Kolhapur, as also the order of Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. It is relevant to note the
observations of the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ
Petition No.16283 of 2024 by order dated 28 th January 2025 and more
particularly, the paragraph No.17 of the said order, which reads as
under :
“17. The objective behind incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in
the Village Panchayats Act must be borne in mind. The objective
is to ensure that a resident of village, who is vying to occupy
responsible post of member, Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must
come clean by ensuring that there are no arrears of taxes or fees
payable to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. Keeping this broad
objective in mind, the disqualification of the Petitioner in the
present case, appears to have been correctly effected who has
deliberately not paid property taxes in respect of the two houses
while paying the same in respect of one house. Even if there are
multiple heirs entitled to succeed to the said two house
properties, since Petitioner desired contesting of elections, he
ought to have ensured that the property tax Bills are paid withinZIP 5 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).docthe stipulated time so as not to incur disqualification
considering the provisions of Exception-2 to Section 14(1)(h). I
am unable to trace any patent error in the concurrent findings
recorded by the Collector, Kolhapur and the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Pune.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, what the learned Single Judge has held that the objective
behind incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in the said Act, is to ensure
that a resident of village, who is to occupy responsible post of member,
Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must come clean by ensuring that there are
no arrears of taxes or fees payable to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. It has
been further held that the disqualification of the respondent No.3 has
been correctly effected who has deliberately not paid property taxes in
respect of the two houses while paying the same in respect of one
house. It has been further held that, as the respondent No.3 is desirous
of contesting election, he ought to have ensured that the property tax
Bills are paid within the stipulated time so as not to incur
disqualification considering the provisions of Exception-2 to Section
14(1)(h).
(vi) As the post of Member has become vacant due to disqualification
of the respondent No.3, the election programme was declared on 30 th
March 2026. As per the said election programme the nomination forms
are to be submitted upto 13th April 2026, scrutiny of nominations is to
be made on 15th April 2026, nominations can be withdrawn till 17 th
April 2026 and if required election is to be held on 28th April 2026.
ZIP 6 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
(vii) It is significant to note that the respondent No.3 submitted
the nomination form for the said election to be held pursuant to
notice dated 30th March 2026 and stated on oath that he has not
been disqualified under the provisions of the said Act. The
petitioner raised an objection before the respondent No.1 and
produced the orders disqualifying the respondent No.3. The
respondent No.1 dismissed the petitioner’s objection and held
that the respondent No.3 is qualified to contest the bye-election.
The Returning Officer while accepting the nomination of the
respondent No.3 has inter alia given following reasons :
“सबब वरील दो्ही वकीलांचे ्हणणे ऐकले असता मी ि वडणूक ि णय अि कारी,
हारोली पुढील रमाणे ि ्काावरती येत आहे की, सदर उमेदवार महावीर बाळासो चौगुले
यां ी छा ीपूव+ रामपंचायत थकबाकी अदा केली असू ्याबाबत रामपंचायत हारोली
यांचा दाखला िद. १०/०४/२०२६ उमेदवार अाासोबत ाोडले ला आहे. तसेच मा.
िा्हाि कारीसो, को्हापूर यांचे कडील अपार आदेश म्ये व मा. हायकोट मुंबई यांचे
कडील िपटीश रमांक १६२८३/२०२४ म्ये अपार कालाव ी मूद सले ले कलम
१४ (१) (ह) ची बा ा सदर उमेदवारास येत सले े सदर उमेदवार महावीर बाळासो
चौगुले यां्या अपील हरकत अमा्य कू हरकतदार ेमी ाथ भाऊसो चौगुले यांचा अा
फेटाळ्यात येत आहे. उमेदवार महावीर बाळासो चौगुले यां ा पोट ि वडणूक हारोली चा
अा पार कर्यात आला आहे.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, what the Returning Officer has held is that respondent No.
3 has deposited the arrears of tax and has submitted a certificate issued
by Gram Panchayat, Haroli dated 10th April, 2026. However, a perusal of
the said certificate dated 10 th April, 2026 shows that no particulars are
given regarding payment of the said arrears of tax. In any case, it is an
admitted position that Respondent No. 3 was disqualified on account of
failure to pay the tax as more particularly set out hereinabove.
8. Thus, in view of the factual position, it is necessary to consider
ZIP 7 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
the legality and validity of the impugned order by which the Returning
Officer has accepted the nomination form of the respondent No.3 by
rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. For appreciating the
legality and validity of the impugned order, it is necessary to set out the
certain provisions of the said Act. Sections 10(1)(a)(i), 11(2), 11(3) and
27 of the said Act are reproduced herein below :-
“10. Constitution of Panchayats
(1) …
(a) A panchayat shall consist of,-
(i) Such number of members not being less than seven and
not more than seventeen as the State Government may
prescribe who shall be elected in accordance with Section
11:
……..”
“11. Election
(1) ……..
(2) The election of members of panchayat or election to fill any
vacancy shall be held on such date as the State Election Commission
may appoint in this behalf.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, if the
vacancy of a member occurs within six months preceding the date
on which the term of office of the members preceding the date on
which the term of office of the members of the panchayat expires
under Section 27(1), the vacancy shall not be filled.
(4)…..”
“27. Term of office of members
(1) The members of a panchayat, shall save as otherwise provided in
the said Act, hold office for a term of five years.
(2)…….”
Section 10 of the said Act provides for constitution of Panchayats.
Section 10(1)(a)(i) provides that a panchayat shall consists of such
number of members not being less than 7 and not more than 17, as the
State Government prescribed, who shall be elected in accordance with
Section 11. Section 11 is regarding an election to constitute a
panchayat. Section 11(2) provides that the election of members of
ZIP 8 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
panchayat or election to fill any vacancy shall be held on such date as
the State Election Commission may appoint in this behalf. Section 11(3)
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, if the
vacancy of a member occurs within six months preceding the date on
which the term of office of the members preceding the date on which
the term of office of the members of the panchayat expires under
Section 27, the vacancy shall not be filled. Section 27 provides that the
members of a panchayat, shall save as otherwise provided in the said
Act, hold office for a term of five years.
9. Thus, it is clear that the election for such vacancy is for the
period of term of office of members as contemplated under Section 27
of the said Act, which in this case is for the period from 2022 to 2027.
10. As set out hereinabove, it is admitted position that the
respondent No.3 contested for the election which has been held for the
period of 2022 to 2027 and he has been disqualified as a member.
11. In this background of this matter, it is relevant to note the Section
13 of the said Act, which reads as under :
“13. Persons qualified to vote and be elected
(1) Every person whose name is in the list of voters shall, unless
disqualified under this Act, or any other law for the time being
in force, be qualified to vote at the election of, a member for the
ward to which [such list pertains and, Sarpanch of panchayat to
be elected directly.
(2) Every person whose name is in the list of voters and who is
not less than twenty-one years of age on the last date fixed for
making nomination for every general election or bye-election
shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law
for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a
member from any ward of the village or for Sarpanch of
panchayat. No person whose name is not entered in the list ofZIP 9 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).docvoters for such village shall be qualified to be elected as a
member of any ward of the village or Sarpanch of panchayat.
(2A) Every person who is not less than 21 years of age on the
last date fixed for making nomination for every general election
or bye-election and whose name is in the list of voters and who
is born on or after 1st January 1995, and who is not disqualified
under this Act, or under any other law for the time being in
force shall, unless possesses minimum 7th standard of school
education passing certificate or acquired educational
qualification equivalent to 7th standard, as certified by the
competent authority, be qualified to be elected as member.
(3) Subject to any disqualification incurred by a person, the list
of voters, shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of
determining under this section whether any person is qualified
or is not qualified to vote, or as the case may be, is qualified or
is not qualified to be elected, at any election.”
Section 13(2) of the said Act provides that every person whose
name is in the list of voters and who is not less than twenty-one years of
age on the last date fixed for making nomination for every general
election or bye-election shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under
any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a
member from any ward of the village or for Sarpanch of panchayat.
Section 13(3) provides that Subject to any disqualification incurred by a
person, the list of voters, shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of
determining under this section whether any person is qualified or is not
qualified to vote, or as the case may be, is qualified or is not qualified to
be elected, at any election.
12. It is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.3 that although it is correct that for the election
which has been held for the period of 2022 to 2027, the respondent
No.3 has been disqualified, and therefore, now the by-election is being
conducted for the said vacant post, however, as the respondent No.3 has
ZIP 10 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
now paid the tax, he can not be held to be disqualified for the purpose
of bye-election.
13. Section 13 of the said Act has been interpreted by the Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in the Case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi
(supra). The relevant paragraph numbers of the said Judgment are 15
to 18, read as under :
“15. This section clearly lays down that if any person is
disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act or
under any other law, he would not be entitled to contest the
election of Sarpanch. As per order of Collector, Dhule dt 3-11-
2014, the petitioner had not disclosed his expenses of the
election held for membership of Zilla Parishad in 2013. Even
after show-cause notices he failed to submit the expenses
within time and therefore he was disqualified.
16. In the present case, the State Election Commission has
delegated its powers to Collector, Dhule to pass order regarding
the disqualification which the Collector, Dhule exercised and
passed the order of disqualification for five years from 3-11-
2014, obviously on the date when respondent No. 5 submitted
nomination for candidature as Sarpanch for Fagane on 22-9-
2017. He was already disqualified under the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and it was existing. This
disqualification will be applicable to the elections of Sarpanch
as per the express language used in section 13(2) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the Notification dt. 1-
9-2017. The arguments of learned advocate Shri Sapkal that
the disqualification will apply only to the election under
particular Act cannot be accepted as it is contrary to the plain
language. In 1955, the language of disqualification in section
3(d) of the Municipalities Act was different. The word ‘in this
behalf was used and the argument was advanced that those
related to disqualification under particular act only but even
this argument was not accepted in Sadasheo vs. Hemaji
(supra).
17. We find that, the Returning Officer has taken a stand totally
contradictory to the provisions of law while upholding the
nomination of respondent No. 5. Since respondent No. 5 was
disqualified but was allowed to contest the election, the whole
election stands vitiated.
ZIP 11 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
18. The disqualification of respondent No. 5 will not lead to
declaring the petitioner as Sarpanch as the election itself stands
vitiated. Therefore, the prayer for declaring the petitioner as
elected Sarpanch deserves to be rejected.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, what has been held by the Division Bench in the case of
Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi (supra), is that the only remedy provided to
challenge the order of rejecting or accepting the nomination is by way
of Election Petition to be presented after the election is over, and even
the High Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India during the intermediate period. However, if there
are illegalities in the election, the same may have the effect of vitiating
the election.
14. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent No.3, though
elected as a member, has been disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of
the said Act for non-payment of taxes within three months from the
date on which the amount of such tax or fee was demanded, and the
bill for the purpose was duly served upon him.
15. It is also significant to note that the Explanation-2 for the
purpose of Clause (h) which provides that, a person shall not be
deemed to disqualify if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due,
prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of the candidates. It is
also an admitted position that the present bye-election is for the post
which has fallen vacant on account of the respondent No.3 having been
ZIP 12 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
declared disqualified.
16. It is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.3, that in view of Explanation-2(i), since he has paid
the amount of tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for nomination
of candidates, and as such payment was made before the nomination
for the bye-election, his nomination has been validly accepted.
17. However, Section 13 of the said Act, specifically provides that
every person whose name is in the list of voters and who is not less than
twenty-one years of age on the last date fixed for making nomination
for every general election or bye-election shall, unless disqualified
under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be
qualified to be elected as a member from any ward of the village or for
Sarpanch of panchayat. Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 provides that
subject to any disqualification incurred by a person, the list of voters,
shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose fo determining under this
section whether any person is qualified or is not qualified to vote, or as
the case may be, is qualified or is not qualified to be elected, at any
election.
18. Section 14 of the said Act which is regarding disqualification is
set out herein below :-
“14. Disqualifications
(1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat continue
as such, who-
(a) has, whether before or after the commencement of
ZIP 13 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).docthis Act, been convicted-
(i) of an offence under the Untouchability (Offences)
Act, 1955, or under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or any
law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State,
unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the State
Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since
his conviction, or
(ii) of any other offence and been sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of six
years, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow
in any particular case, has elapsed since his release; or
(a-1) has been disqualified by or under any law for the time
being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of
the Maharashtra State:
Provided that, no person shall be disqualified on the ground
that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained
the age of twenty-one years);
(b) has been adjuged by a competent Court to be of unsound
mind;
(c) has been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained
his discharge; or
(c-1) having held any office under any Government or local
authority, has whether before or after the commencement of this
Act, been dismissed for misconduct, unless a period of five years
has elapsed since his dismissal; or
(d) has been removed from office under sub-section (1) of
section 39 and a period of six years has not elapsed from the
date of such removal, unless he has, by an order of the State
Government notified in the Official Gazette, been relieved from
the disqualification arising on account of such removal from
office; or
(e) has been disqualified from holding office under sub-
section (2) of section 39 and the period for which he was so
disqualified has not elapsed; or
(f) holds any salaried office or place of profit in the gift or
disposal of the Panchayat, while holding such office or place; or
(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; or
(h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat [or the
Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the
amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the
purpose is duly served on him; or
(h-1) fails to pay the amount of surcharge or charge under
section 140 or the amount ordered to be paid under section 178
together with interest, if any, within the period provided in that
behalf, and where an appeal has been made, then within one
month from the date of receipt of the decision rejecting such
appeal;
(i) is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local
authority; or
ZIP 14 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
(j) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State,
or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a
foreign State; or
(j-1) has more than two children:
Provided that, a person having more than two children on
the date of commencement of the Bombay Village Panchayats
and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
(Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as
“the date of such commencement”), shall not be disqualified
under this clause so long as the number of children he had on
the date of such commencement does not increase:
Provided further that, a child or more than one child born in
single delivery within the period of one year from the date of
such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for
the purpose of disqualification mentioned in this clause; or
(j-2) has been elected as a Councillor of the Zilla Parishad or as
a member of the Panchayat Samiti; or
(j-3) has encroached upon the Government land or public
property; or
(j-4) has been disqualified by the State Election Commission
under section 14B; or
(j-5) fails to submit a certificate of the concerned panchayat,
alongwith the resolution of the Gram Sabha or of the Chief
Executive Officer or an officer designated by him; or a self
certificate certifying that,-
(i) he resides in a house owned by him and has a toilet in
such house and he regularly uses such toilet; or
(ii) he resides in a house not owned by him and has a toilet
in such house and he regularly uses the public toilet:
Provided that, no member of a panchayat shall be
disqualified under this clause, if he submits such certificate to
the Block Development Officer, within a period of one year from
the 10th January, 2011, being the date of commencement of the
Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010:
Provided further that, nothing contained in this clause shall
affect the member holding office on the 10th January, 2011,
who has not submitted the certificate within a period of ninety
days from the said date, as required under the provisions of this
Act, as amended by the Bombay Village Panchayats and
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second
Amendment) Act, 2010, and he shall not be deemed to be
disqualified and shall continue to hold his office for a period of
one year from the said date, unless he is disqualified under any
other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being
in force; or
(k) is disqualified under any other provisions of this Act, and
the period for which he was so disqualified has not elapsed.
Explanation 1.- A person shall not, by reason only of his being a
shareholder in or a member of, any incorporated or registered
company or a co-operative society registered under any law for
ZIP 15 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
the time being in force in the [State of Maharashtra] be held to
be interested in any contract entered into between the company
or co-operative society and the panchayat.
Explanation 1A. A person shall not be disqualified under clause
(g) by reason only of such person, –
(i) having a share or an interest in any newspaper in which
any advertisement relating to the affairs of the panchayat is
inserted; or
(ii) having a share or a interest in the occasional sale to the
panchayat of any article in which he regularly trades, or in the
purchase from the panchayat of any article, of a value in either
case not exceeding in any financial year two hundred rupees; or
(iii) having a share or interest in the occasional letting out on
hire to the panchayat or in the hiring from the panchayat of any
article for an amount not exceeding in any financial year
twenty-five rupees or such higher amount not exceeding one
hundred rupees, as the panchayat, with the sanction of the
Collector may fix in the behalf; or
(iv) having any share or interest in any lease for a period not
exceeding ten years, of any immovable property or in agreement
for the same, and before such lease or agreement is executed,
the Block Development Officer certifies that no other suitable
premises were available to the panchayat on lease.
Explanation 2.- For the purpose of clause (h)-
(i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has
paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day
prescribed for the nomination of candidates;
(ii) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat by a
member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging
to a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in
estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify all members of
such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the
members of such group or unit.
Explanation 3. For the purposes of clause (i), a Police Patil
appointed under section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act,
1967, shall be deemed to be a servant of Government.
Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (g), a person shall not
be deemed to have any share or interest in any employment by
reason only of any relation of his being employed with or under
a panchayat, as an officer or servant thereof.
Explanation 5.- for the purpose of clause (j-1),-
(i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of
such commencement, any number of children born out of a
single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;
(ii) “child” does not include an adopted child or children.”
(Emphasis added)
19. For appreciating the contention raised by Mr. Mudgal, learned
ZIP 16 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Section 14 contemplates
various Acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transaction etc. for incurring the
disqualification. Every disqualification is of different nature. Sub
Section (j-1) of Section 14(1) provides that no person shall be a
member of panchayat continue as such, who has more than two
children. Thus, such a person incur disqualification for life time.
20. As far as a person who has been convicted of an offence under
the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, or under the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949 or any law corresponding thereto in force in any
part of the State, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as
the State Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed
since the conviction, or of any other offence and been sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of six year,
or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any
particular case, has elapsed since his release is the period of
disqualification. Thus, in this case under Sub section 1(a) of Section 14
of the said Act, a prescribed period is provided.
21. Sub Section 1(c) of Section 14 of the said Act provides that no
person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such, who has
been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained his discharge. Thus,
it is very clear that such person’s disqualification will continue until he
has not obtained discharge.
ZIP 17 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
22. Subsection 1(c-1) of Section 14 of the said Act provides that
where a person having held any office under any Government or local
authority, has whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
been dismissed for misconduct, unless a period of five years has elapsed
since his dismissal. Thus, there are various provisions are made where
disqualification is provided specifically for a particular period.
23. In view of the same, it is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that, as no such period is
provided, the disqualification will be only up to the period till when the
said taxes are not paid.
24. The said submission is contrary to the scheme of the said Act. If
such submission is accepted, the person who has contested the election
and has failed to pay any tax can pay the tax during disqualification
proceedings and then in that case he can not be declared as
disqualified.
25. It is very clear that where specific period is provided under
Section 14 of the said Act, the disqualification will be for that period
and as far as the other provisions are concerned, it will be term of office
of members of panchayat. It is equally clear that, otherwise, a person
who has encroached upon Government land or public property and is
liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3), after suffering such
disqualification, could remove the encroachment and again contest the
ZIP 18 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
bye-election held for the post which has fallen vacant due to his
disqualification and will submit that he is not disqualified now. This is
not the scheme of Section 14 of the said Act relating to disqualification.
Therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge while upholding
the disqualification are very important.
26. The learned Single Judge has observed that the objective behind
incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in the Village Panchayat Act is to
ensure that a resident of village, who is intended to occupy responsible
post of member, Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must come clean by ensuring
that there are no arrears of taxes or fees payable to Panchayat or Zilla
Parishad. In fact, the observations of learned Single Judge in the case of
Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra), and more particularly in paragraph
No.11 are very important. The said paragraph No.11 reads as under :
“11. It is in the background of the aforesaid provisions of law,
that the provisions of qualifications and disqualifications to vote,
contest the election and being continued as a member of
Panchayat, are required to be considered. Section 13 of the said
Act deals with the persons qualified to vote and be elected. The
persons incurring any disqualification under the provisions of
the said Act are neither qualified to vote nor to be elected as a
member of a Panchayat. Section 14 deals with different kinds of
disqualifications, as stipulated in clauses (a) to (k) under sub-
section (1), which operate against two kinds of persons (i) who
proposes to become a member of a Panchayat, and (ii) who has
become a member of a Panchayat. If a person has incurred any
one or more disqualifications, then he is prohibited from
becoming a member of a Panchayat, and if he becomes a
member of a Panchayat, then he is not entitled to continue as
such. The disqualification under section 14 is in respect of the
acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transactions, etc, which have been
done, happened or occurred before entering into the office as a
member of a Panchayat as well as those which take place duringZIP 19 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doccontinuance as a member of a Panchayat.”
(Emphasis added)
27. Thus, it is clear that if a person has incurred any one or more
disqualifications then he is prohibited from becoming a member of a
Panchayat, and if he becomes a member of a Panchayat, then he is not
entitled to continue as such. The disqualification under Section 14 of
the said Act is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds
transactions, etc. which have been done, happened or occurred before
entering into the office as a member of Panchayat as well as those
which take place during continuance as a member of a Panchayat.
28. It is required to be noted that this is a bye-election for the seat of
member which seat has become vacant as the Respondent No.3 has
been declared as disqualified and now again the Respondent No.3 has
submitted the nomination for said bye-election and his nomination is
accepted. Thus, the person who has incurred disqualification when the
election has taken place for the said Panchayat, got elected and held to
be disqualified can not be held to be qualified as he removes the said
disqualification by the time bye-election is declared. What is important
is as held by a learned single Judge in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao
Bhadade (supra), that the disqualification under Section 14 of the said
Act is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds transactions, etc.
which have been done, happened or occurred before entering into the
office as a member of Panchayat as well as those which take place
ZIP 20 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
during continuance as a member of a Panchayat.
29. If the scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the said Act is interpreted
in the manner in which learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3 is contending then in that case a person who has suffered
disqualification and contested the said disqualification up to the High
court, is being awarded by giving a chance of removal of the reason for
disqualification, and again allowing him to contest the bye-election for
the same tenure of Village Panchayat.
30. It is required to be noted that this is a bye-election for the
election which has taken place for the period of 2022 to 2027, and
therefore, Section 14 read with Section 13 of the said act is required to
be interpreted in the manner in which it has been interpreted in the
case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra).
31. It is significant to note that in the case of Janabai (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically approved what has been held by
learned single Judge in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra).
The paragraph No.28 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :
28. Section 184 of the Act provides that every Member of the
panchayat and every officer and servant maintained by or being
employed under the panchayat shall be deemed to be a public
servant for the purpose of Section 21 of the b Penal Code, 1860.
Analysing the various provisions, the learned Single Judge in
Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade has opined: (SCC OnLine Bom para
11)
“11. It is if the background of the aforesaid provisions
of law, that the provisions of qualifications and disqualifications
to vote, contest the election and being continued as a member
ZIP 21 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
of panchayat, are required to be considered. Section 13 of the
said Act deals with the persons qualified to vote and be elected.
The persons incurring any disqualification under the provisions
of the said Act are neither qualified to vote nor to be elected as
a member of a panchayat. Section 14 deals with different kinds
of disqualifications, as stipulated in clauses (a) to (k) under
sub-section (1). which operate against two kinds of persons (1)
who proposes to become a member of a panchayat, and (ii)
who has become a member of a panchayat. If a person has
incurred any one or more disqualifications, then he is
prohibited from becoming a member of a panchayat, and if he
becomes a member of a panchayat, then he is not entitled to
continue as such. The disqualification under Section 14 is in
respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transactions, etc.
which have been done, happened or occurred before entering
into the office as a member of a panchayat as well as those
Which take place during continuance as a member of a
panchayat.”
And again: (SCC OnLine Bom para 13)
“13. The very object of introducing the provision of
disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act is to
avoid the conflict of interest by prohibiting the persons, who
are the encroachers upon the government land or public
property to get elected or continued as a member of the
panchayat, which is a democratically elected body of the
villagers. It is beyond comprehension to assume that a person
under statutory obligation or a duty to protect the government
land or public property from encroachment, commits an act of
such encroachment. To permit person, who proposes to become
a member or becomes a member of the panchayat to be the
encroacher upon the government land or public property, would
be anathematic, acting in breach of statutory duty, exposing
himself to prosecution under sub-sections (1) and (4) of
Section 53, resulting ultimately in losing the protection under
Section 180 read with Section 184 of the said Act. It is in this
context that the text of disqualification under Section 14(1)(1-
3) of the said Act is required to be analysed and interpreted.”
(Emphasis added)
32. Thus, it is clear that the said disqualification which has been as
contemplated under Section 14 of the said Act where specific time limit
is not provided, or such as, like having more than two children which
disqualification for the entire life have to be held as disqualification for
the term of members of a Panchayat i.e. for a period of five years, and
in the present case, which is for the period from 2022 to 2027.
ZIP 22 of 23
::: Uploaded on – 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
503-WP(ST)-3012-2026 (C).doc
33. Thus, for the above reasons, the order dated 15 th April 2026
passed by respondent No.1 – Returning Officer is quashed and set aside.
However, it is required to be noted that although the petitioner has not
sought relief of declaring him as elected member, the effect of setting
aside the impugned order of accepting nomination of respondent No.3
may be the same. However, as held by the Division bench of this Court
in the case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi (supra), the election itself
stands vitiated, and therefore, it is made very clear that in view of
setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 – Returning Officer, it
can not be held that the petitioner stands elected as a member.
34. It is made very clear that disqualification of respondent No.3 will
not lead to declaring the petitioner as a member, as the election itself
stands vitiated.
35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with no
order as to costs.
[ PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
ZIP 23 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/05/2026 21:21:21 :::
