The Bombay High Court held that temporary storage of goods in Gram Panchayat property, with the consent of the Panchayat and without proof of direct or indirect involvement of the elected member, does not attract disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The judgment upholds the view of the appellate authority and affirms the existing interpretation, serving as binding authority within Maharashtra on the evidentiary and substantive requirements for disqualification cases involving alleged unauthorized use of government property by family members of elected Panchayat members.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/8732/2025 of SUDHIR VILAS AWATE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR RURAL DEPT. AND ORS |
| CNR | HCBM070209572025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for Maharashtra; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms appellate order of Additional Divisional Commissioner; does not overrule precedent |
| Type of Law | Panchayat Election Law / Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act |
| Questions of Law | Does temporary use of Gram Panchayat property by a family member for storage—with Panchayat consent and no direct involvement of member—trigger disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that for Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act to apply, there must be clear, concrete evidence of unauthorized occupation or encroachment of government property attributable directly or indirectly to the member. Temporary storage of food grains at Gram Panchayat premises with Panchayat consent, and without continuous or permanent encroachment or member’s direct involvement, does not amount to “unauthorized encroachment”. The appellate authority’s view that absence of such elements prevents disqualification is upheld as reasonable. The Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction in absence of perversity or misapplication of law by the appellate authority. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified by name in the judgment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment emphasized the need for concrete evidence of unauthorized occupation by the member (directly or indirectly), and distinguished temporary, consented use for storage from encroachment; also highlighted the findings of the appellate/administrative authorities. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner alleged that respondent’s mother operated a fair price shop from government property. Reports showed temporary board display and storage with Panchayat consent, but distribution was from a private house. The appellate authority reversed disqualification, finding no continuous encroachment or direct involvement of respondent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Maharashtra dealing with MVP Act disqualification issues |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals interpreting similar provisions or facts |
| Follows | The appellate order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner (2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, requires clear and concrete evidence of unauthorized, permanent, or continuous occupation of government property directly or indirectly by the elected member.
- Clarifies that temporary and consented use of Panchayat property—especially mere storage with consent—does not amount to encroachment warranting disqualification.
- Advocates must demonstrate member’s direct or indirect link and unauthorized encroachment for Section 14(1)(J-3) to apply.
- Findings of administrative appellate authorities will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner based his claim on reports that the respondent’s mother had used government property (Health Center building) for running a fair price shop.
- The Court closely examined the evidence: the communication by the Village Development Officer was based on hearsay, and the Block Development Officer’s reports only noted a temporary board and later removal, with the premises locked.
- The appellate memo, on careful reading, showed that the respondent’s mother only used the Panchayat premises temporarily for storage—with the consent of Panchayat members—and distributed food grains from her own house, not the public property.
- The Court determined that temporary storage, even if in government property, with consent and absent permanent or continuous unauthorized occupation, does not satisfy criteria under Section 14(1)(J-3).
- No evidence was produced to show the elected member (respondent) was directly or indirectly involved in the mother’s business or any unauthorized use.
- The appellate authority’s assessment was found reasonable and a possible legal view, not perverse, and thus not warranting writ intervention.
- The Court refused to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, dismissing the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that respondent’s mother operated a fair price shop from government (Gram Panchayat) property.
- Claimed that use of government property, even by a family member, triggers Section 14(1)(J-3) disqualification.
- Argued that the respondent admitted to such use in appellate documents.
Respondent
- Denied any concrete evidence of encroachment or unauthorized occupation by the respondent’s mother.
- Highlighted that storage was temporary, consented to by Panchayat, and distribution was from a private residence.
- Emphasized absence of respondent’s direct or indirect involvement in mother’s business.
Factual Background
The dispute centered around the elected member (respondent) whose mother was running a fair price shop. The petitioner claimed that government property was being illegally used for this purpose, thus warranting respondent’s disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Official reports showed that while the shop’s board was temporarily displayed and some goods stored at the Panchayat premises, storage was with the consent of the Panchayat members and was not permanent. Distribution was carried out from the mother’s private residence. The appellate authority set aside the disqualification, and this was challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which provides for disqualification of a Panchayat member for unauthorized encroachment or occupation of government property.
- Interpreted “unauthorized encroachment” as requiring evidence of actual, continuous, or permanent encroachment, not mere temporary, consented use.
- Noted the need for establishing the elected member’s direct or indirect involvement or benefit from the alleged encroachment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing standards for disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the MVP Act were reaffirmed, not overturned.