SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 01-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 623
623
SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act,
1986 – Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification
Rules, 1987 – Selection of Gatneta (Group Leader/Party Leader)
of INCPS Party – Appellant and respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 formed
a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party – In the
year 2017, the First meeting of INCPS Party was held, presided by
the then President of District INC Party and in the said meeting
appellant was elected as Party Leader of INCPS Party – It was also
decided in the meeting that the District President of INC Party will
have the power to change the Party Leader – In the year 2019, a
complaint was filed by the respondent nos.3 to 5 against the appellant
that in her tenure she had not taken members of the INCPS Party in
confidence – In the year 2020, meeting was held presided by the
District INC Party President and unanimous decision was taken to
remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader and respondent
no.3 was appointed as a new Party Leader – Then in the election to
the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur
Panchayat Samiti was held on 07.01.2020 and the appellant was
elected as the Chairman – Earlier, two separate whips were issued
in the INCPS Party – One by respondent no.3 with directions that
she was given candidature for the post of Chairman and another
whip was issued by the appellant directing INCPS Party members
that she herself was standing for Chairman – In the election of the
Chairman, except appellant all the party members of INCPS voted
against the appellant – It was alleged that appellant was elected
with the support of rivals – Disqualification petitions were filed by
both appellant and respondent no.3 against each other – The District
Collector approved appointment of respondent no.3 as Party Leader
– Writ Petition by appellant – Writ petition was dismissed by the
High Court – On appeal, held: Same procedure was followed in
appointing the appellant and in her removal – In both the decision
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
making process, the meeting was chaired by the District Party
President – Also, the resolution of the first meeting itself provided
that in event of a decision to change Party Leader, the District
President will retain all his powers – So, appellant cannot be heard
to make grievance as regard the procedure which was followed to
remove her – When appellant was appointed she enjoyed the support
of all the members of INCPS Party – However, she chose a different
path and lost the support of the majority – The Act and Rules are
there to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political
system but, same cannot be interpreted in a manner that one person
will thrust himself/herself upon other members who are in majority
– Appellant chose to contest election of the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group – No reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got
the authorityto communicate to the Collector on account of the
minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be noted that
the said meeting was presided over by the then President of
Ahmednagar District INC Party. The resolution in the said
meeting also provided that in the event of a decision to change
the Party Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPS
Party will retain all his powers as well as the power to submit
proposals to the District Collector. [Para 17][635-F-G]
2. It could thus be seen that the very appointment of the
appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of the
resolution of the meeting chaired by the President of the
Ahmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove the
appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the INCPS
Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as Gatneta/Party Leader is
also taken in a meeting which was presided over by the President
of Ahmednagar District INC Party. [Para 18][635-G-H; 636-A]
3. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated 1.3.2017
itself, the authority to take steps with regard to change of leader
was given to the President of the District INC Party. The appellant
therefore cannot be heard to make grievance w

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