LAXMIBAI versus THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
LAXMIBAI
v.
THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Election
of Gram Panchayat – Appellant elected as member of village
Panchayat – Disqualification of appellant on account of non-
submission of election expenses within the period prescribed – Held:
A perusal of s.14B shows that the State Election Commission is to
be satisfied as to whether a person has no good reason or
justification for the failure to furnish account of election expenses
– Secondly in terms of sub-section (2) for the reasons to be recorded,
the disqualification under sub-section (1) can be removed or the
period of disqualification can be reduced – In the instant case,
explanation of appellant that he was advised bed rest on account
of hypertension and diabetes which caused unintended delay in
furnishing election expenses was not accepted – Collector passed
order disqualifying the appellant for a period of five years to be
member of Gram Panchayat – Appeal dismissed for the reason that
the medical certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority –
High Court while disposing of writ petition held that copy of medical
certificate tendered by the appellant had no particulars such as
name, diagnosis, date and reference number and the said certificate
was issued by the private hospital bearing only a stamp of doctor
and the said document cannot be relied upon and if the authorities
did not accept it, there was no error in the said view – There is no
reason to take a different view than the view affirmed by the High
Court.
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Plea of
appellant was that there was delay of 15 days in submitting the
election expenses and, therefore, disqualification for a period of
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 880
880
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
881
five years was disproportionate to the default committed by her –
Held: s.14B empowers the Election Commission to pass a just order
of disqualification – The extent of period of disqualification has to
be in proportion to the default – In the instant case, the order of
disqualification for a period of five years was without taking into
consideration the extent of default committed by the appellant –
Such mechanical exercise of power without any adequate reasons,
rendered the order of disqualification for a period of five years as
illegal and untenable – Consequently, the order passed by the
Collector and subsequent orders in appeal and in the writ petition
are set aside in part to the extent of prescribing disqualification for
a period of five years – Matter remitted to the Collector to take into
consideration the period of delay/default, the purport for which
the election expenses are sought to be furnished and that the order
of disqualification operates from the date of the order including
delay in passing the order of disqualification – Election laws.
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Whether
provision of s.14B, mandatory or directory – Held: In s.14B, there
is no prohibitive or negative expressions used as it empowers the
Election Commission to pass a just order of disqualification – Sub-
section (1) of s.14B empowers the State Election Commission to pass
an order of disqualification of a candidate, if the candidate fails to
lodge account of election expenses for lack of good reason or without
any justification – Such satisfaction is required to be recorded by
the Election Commission – Since authority is vested with power to
reduce the period of disqualification, therefore, makes the provision
directory.
Maharashatra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961: s.15B – Elections of Panchayat Samiti – Disqualification of
appellant for contesting elections for the period of five years on
account of non-submission of election expenses within period
prescribed – Meanwhile, elections of Gram Panchayat were notified
and appellant submitted his nomination for the post of Sarpanch –
Objection against it was rejected by the Returning Officer and
appellant was duly elected to the post of Sarpanch – Returning
Officer held that disqualification was applicable only for the
LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
elections of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis and not for
elections of Gram Panchayat – Order of Returning Officer 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.