Shobhabai Narayan Shinde vs The Divisional Commissioner

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2021)

SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDE ..…APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 451 OF 2021)

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH

1. Leave granted.

Date: 2022.01.04 16:35:37 IST Reason: 2

2. The core issue in these appeals is: whether an appeal could

be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order

passed by the Collector under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra

Village Panchayats Act, 19591, declining to disqualify a

Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for allegedly having failed to

lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the

manner prescribed by the State Election Commission, without

offering any good reason or justification for such failure?

3. Briefly stated, the appellants contested elections held in

September, 2018 for electing a new Panchayat. The appellant in

appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 295/2021 had been directly

elected as a Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kusumba, Taluka and

District Dhule in the State of Maharashtra, from public, whereas,

the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 451/2021 was

elected as a member of the same Village Panchayat.

4. Respondent No. 2 filed two Dispute Applications being Nos.

10/2019 and 11/2019 in the office of respondent No. 5 – Collector,

seeking declaration under Section 14B(1) ­ that the appellants

1 for short, “the 1959 Act” 3

herein stood disqualified for not submitting the election expenses

within the stipulated time. The Collector, after considering the

relevant material and the submissions of the rival parties, rejected

both the Dispute Applications by separate judgment and order

dated 5.2.2019 being devoid of merits.

5. The respondent No. 2 thereafter carried the matter in appeal

before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Region, Nasik 2,

questioning the correctness of the rejection of his Dispute

Applications by the Collector. The Divisional Commissioner

allowed both the appeals by separate judgment and order dated

15.7.2019 and thereby declaring the appellants as disqualified and

ineligible to remain as Gram Panchayat Sarpanch/Member.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petitions before the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad 3 being

Writ Petition Nos. 9244/2019 and 9245/2019.

7. As common question had arisen for consideration, the High

Court vide impugned common judgment and order dated

2 for short, “the Divisional Commissioner” 3 for short, “the High Court” 4

17.12.2020, dismissed both the writ petitions and affirmed the

order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner

against the appellants herein.

8. The principal challenge before the High Court was about the

jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeals

as filed by the respondent No. 2. For, the 1959 Act does not

provide for an appeal against the order passed by the Collector

under Section 14B(1) in rejecting the application for declaring the

incumbent member as disqualified. Further, the remedy provided

for consequent to the decision of the Collector under Section 14B(1)

before the Divisional Commissioner, is limited to removing the

disqualification or reducing the period of any such disqualification.

However, in a case where the Collector rejects the application for

disqualification of Sarpanch/Member, no further remedy of appeal

is provided for in the 1959 Act. The High Court negatived this

contention and opined that it was open to the aggrieved

applicant(s) to assail such decision of the Collector, by way of an

appeal under Section 14B(2) before the Divisional Commissioner.

To buttress this conclusion, the High Court drew analogy from 5

remedy of appeal against order of Collector under Section 16(2)

before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 16(2) and then

adverted to the decision in Suchita Murlidhar Kewati

(Sarpanch) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 4 Further,

having rejected the objection regarding jurisdiction of the

Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeal(s), the High Court

proceeded to affirm the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner

of reversing the decision of the Collector, on merits. Accordingly,

the writ petitions filed by the appellants came to be dismissed.

9. We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel

for the appellants and Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 2. They have, more or less,

reiterated the stand taken before the High Court by the respective

parties.

10. The provision, for disqualifying, to be a member of a

Panchayat and to continue as such, is imbued in Section 14 5 of the

4 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 414 5 Disqualifications. – (1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat continue as such, who –

(a) to (j­3) xxx xxx xxx 6

1959 Act. One of the stipulations inserted by way of amendment

in 2010 with effect from 6.5.2010 is clause (j­4) in Section 14(1). It

predicates that a person, if disqualified by the State Election

Commission under Section 14B of the Act, shall not be a member

of a Panchayat or continue as such. Section 14B 6 was also

inserted by the same amendment Act in 2010. It enables the State

Election Commission to declare a person (member of the

Panchayat) as disqualified for being a member of the Panchayat or

for contesting an election for being a member for a period of five

years from the date of the order so passed, if he has failed to lodge

an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner

(j­4) has been disqualified by the State Election Commission under section 14B; or …..

6 14B. Disqualification by State Election Commission. – (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person, ­

(a) has 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 sub­section (1) or reduce the period of such disqualification.

7

required by the State Election Commission and has no good reason

or justification for such failure. Sub­Section (2) of Section 14B

enables the State Election Commission to remove such

disqualification or reduce the period thereof.

11. Be it noted that the State Election Commission in exercise of

its enabling powers, vide Article 243­K of the Constitution of India

including Section 10A(2)7 of the 1959 Act, issued an order dated

19.11.20108 to delegate its powers, such as under Section 14B of

7 10A. State Election Commission.­ …..

(2) The State Election Commissioner may, by order, 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.

8 … STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA New Administrative Building, Opp. Ministry, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 032 Date: 19.11.2010

ORDER

Regarding conferring of powers to declare disqualification of the candidates contesting the elections of Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Village Panchayats if they do not submit the expenditure account in the prescribed manner.

No. SEC/ZPPS/2010/L.No.9/KA­7: Under the powers conferred vide Article No. 243­K of the Indian Constitution, as well Section 9A(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and Section 10A(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and in exercise of other powers, the State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra pass the following order: ­ 8

the 1959 Act to the officers of the State Government. Clause B of

the stated order stipulates that powers conferred upon the State

Election Commission under Section 14B(1) shall vest in the

concerned Collector of the District and powers conferred on it

under Section 14B(2) shall vest with the concerned Divisional

Commissioner.

12. By virtue of this order, the State Election Commission has

had authorised the Collector to exercise its powers under Section

14B(1); whereas powers under Section 14B(2) by the Divisional

Commissioner. It follows that the concerned State Government

officials are ordained to exercise the assigned power in silos. Ergo,

the power of State Election Commission under Section 14B(1) to

declare that the Sarpanch/Member of a Panchayat as disqualified,

(A) The powers conferred under the provisions of Section 15(B)(1) and 62(A) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 are hereby vested in concerned Collector. Similarly the powers conferred under Section 15(B)(2) and 62(B)(1) are hereby vested in concerned Divisional Commissioners.

(B) The powers conferred under the provisions of Section 14(B)(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 are hereby vested in concerned Collector. Similarly the powers conferred under Section 14(B)(2) are hereby vested in concerned Divisional Commissioners.

By the order of Election Commissioner … (emphasis supplied) 9

is to be exercised by the Collector and not the Divisional

Commissioner. Similarly, the Divisional Commissioner can

exercise power only in respect of matters specified in Section

14B(2) ­ to remove the disqualification incurred under sub­Section

(1) or reduce the period of such disqualification. In either case, the

power to decide concerned issues is that of the State Election

Commission, which thenceforth could be exercised by its

concerned delegatee in respect of matters specified in the stated

order.

13. Notably, no appeal is provided against the order of Collector

(or of State Election Commission) refusing to disqualify the

Sarpanch/Member under Section 14B(1). Similarly, no appeal is

provided even against the order of the Divisional Commissioner (or

of State Election Commission) under Section 14B(2). A limited

window against the order under Section 14B(1) passed by the

Collector (or State Election Commission itself) declaring the

Sarpanch/Member of a Panchayat as disqualified, is kept open

before the Divisional Commissioner (or the State Election

Commissioner, if the order under Section 14B(1) is or were to be 10

passed by the State Election Commission itself) ­ to remove such

disqualification or to reduce the period thereof in deserving cases.

To put it tersely, for the nature of power exercised by the State

Election Commission under Section 14B, no remedy of appeal is

envisioned by the statute.

14. The power of the State Election Commission, bestowed under

sub­Section (1) or (2) of Section 14B, though concerns subject of

disqualification of a person, it operates in two different silos. In

that, the power under Section 14B(2) gets triggered only after an

order of disqualification is passed under Section 14B(1). The

former is not activated at all in a case where the application or the

proceedings to declare the Sarpanch/Member as disqualified, is

rejected or dropped. Taking any other view would inevitably result

in a situation where the power exercised by the State Election

Commission under Section 14B(1) could be appealed against before

itself (its delegatee). That cannot be countenanced. For, an appeal

cannot lie before the same Authority/functionary who had passed

the order of rejection of prayer to declare the member concerned as

disqualified. Sans an express statutory intent to provide appeal 11

against the order rejecting application to declare a person

disqualified, it must follow that upon passing such order the power

under Section 14B is fully exhausted by the State Election

Commission (or its delegatee, as the case may be).

15. Indubitably, an authority rejecting the proposal regarding

disqualification, cannot sit “in appeal” over its own order of

rejection. Notably, there is no express power bestowed upon the

State Election Commission or its delegatee to review its own

decision passed under Section 14B(1) or 14B(2) of the Act, as the

case may be. The argument of the respondent No. 2 that the power

bestowed on the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2)

posits power to impose disqualification by virtue of Section 21 of

the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not commend to us and the

same needs to be merely stated to be rejected. Similarly, we reject

the argument of the respondent No. 2 that it is a case of Casus

Omissus. Whereas, the legislative intent and the setting in which

the relevant provisions are couched leaves no manner of doubt that

such power had not been given to the delegatee (Divisional 12

Commissioner), as it does not inhere in the State Election

Commission itself.

16. The High Court, however, answered the question by referring

to the logic under Section 16(2) 9 of the Act. We hasten to observe

that the High Court posed a wrong question to itself in paragraph 2

of the impugned judgment (whether the Divisional Commissioner

had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under “Section 16(2)”

against an order of Collector under Section 14B(1) refusing to

9 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 decides 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 sub­section by the Collector against any member without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(emphasis supplied) 13

disqualify a Sarpanch/Member), and as a result of which arrived at

the wrong conclusion.

17. Concededly, Section 16 is a provision which speaks about the

disability from continuing as the member of a Panchayat,

consequent to incurring disqualification or has been so declared

under Section 14 of the Act. Once a Sarpanch/Member is

disqualified under Section 14B by virtue of an order under Section

14B(1), it would give rise to two situations – the first is that the

person concerned can invoke option under Section 14B(2) for

removal of his disqualification or for reduction of the period of such

disqualification. The second is the obligation fastened upon the

Collector to decide the issue as to whether vacancy has occurred

on account of such disqualification. That question is required to

be answered by the Collector in the first instance, in terms of

Section 16(2) and to take follow­up steps thereafter in filling up

such vacancy. The decision of the Collector on such question,

referable to sub­Section (2) of Section 16, however, has explicitly

been made appealable before the State Government or the delegate

of the State Government. That is, completely, a different regime

albeit a consequence of process referred to in Section 14B(1) ­ to 14

declare a Sarpanch or a member as having incurred

disqualification. This question decided by the Collector, is

essentially in his capacity as a delegatee of the State Election

Commission and, de jure, deemed to have been decided by the

State Election Commission itself. Be that as it may, the question

decided by the Collector under Section 16 is, in one sense, a

ministerial act bestowed upon him to ascertain whether vacancy

had arisen as a consequence of the disqualification order and to fill

up such vacancy.

18. A priori, if the State Election Commission or its delegatee were

to reject or drop the proceedings against the concerned person or

member initiated under Section 14B(1), as being devoid of merits

or for any other reason, the complainant does not have remedy of

appeal against such decision. Such an order becomes final and is

not appealable at all. Indeed, it can be assailed before the

constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. The High Court has adverted to the decision in Suchita

Murlidhar Kewati10. Indeed, the exposition in that decision is in

the context of an application filed under Section 14B for a

10 supra at Footnote No. 4 15

declaration that the elected member had incurred disqualification.

However, the observations in paragraph 9 of the reported decision

have been completely misconstrued and misapplied to the fact

situation of the present case.

20. Our attention has also been drawn to yet another decision of

the same Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 12276/2021

decided on 3.12.202111. In the said judgment, the legal position

has been correctly expounded that the processes under Section

14B(1) and Section 16 are completely different, though concern the

matter of disqualification and vacancy arising therefrom. In case,

the Collector rejects the complaint and drops the proceedings in

favour of concerned Sarpanch/Member, there would be no

question of accrual of any vacancy. In contradistinction, if the

Collector declares the member as having incurred disqualification,

the follow­up issue required to be considered by the Collector

under Section 16 then is to ascertain if any vacancy had arisen

because of such disqualification. The two are different processes.

11 Shri Gulabrao vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ­ Writ Petition No. 12276/2021 decided on 3.12.2021 16

21. Taking any view of the matter, the opinion of the High Court

in the impugned judgment cannot be countenanced. We conclude

that no remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State

Election Commission or its delegatee – the Collector, under Section

14B(1), rejecting the complaint or to drop the proceedings for

declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred

disqualification. That order becomes final and if passed by the

Collector as the delegatee, is deemed to have been passed by the

State Election Commission itself. Even the State Election

Commission cannot step in thereafter in any manner much less in

the guise of reconsideration or review of such order. It must follow

that the Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction (ab

initio) to entertain assail to such an order of the Collector.

22. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court not only

negatived the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Divisional

Commissioner to entertain the stated appeals, but also affirmed

the decision on merits in reversing the order(s) of Collector

rejecting the Dispute Applications of the respondent No. 2. The

fact that the High Court ventured into the terrain of dealing with 17

merits of the case, does not require us to examine that question.

For, once it is held that the Divisional Commissioner had no

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the

Collector under Section 14B(1) rejecting the complaint filed by the

respondent No. 2, no other issue needed examination by the High

Court at his instance. Resultantly, we decline to go into the

correctness of the decision of the Collector on merits in rejecting

the Dispute Applications filed by respondent No. 2, for a

declaration that the appellants had incurred disqualification. We

also do not wish to dilate on the plea urged by the respondent No.

2 that the appellants had disentitled themselves for indulgence of

this Court owing to their conduct, as we have held that the stated

order(s) of the Divisional Commissioner are without jurisdiction

and non­est in law.

23. Accordingly, these appeals succeed. The impugned common

judgment and order is set aside. As a result, the separate orders

passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 15.7.2019 in the

respective appeals are also set aside and instead the writ petitions

filed by the appellants are allowed, thereby restoring the separate 18

orders passed by the Collector dated 5.2.2019, rejecting the stated

Dispute Application(s) filed by the respondent No. 2. There shall be

no order as to costs.

..……………………………J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

………………………………J. (C.T. Ravikumar)

New Delhi;

January 04, 2022.