SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDE versus THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 04-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1035
1035
SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDE
v.
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION,
NASHIK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2022)
JANUARY 04, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – ss.14B(1) and
14B(2) – Whether an appeal could be filed before the Divisional
Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector u/s.14B(1),
declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for
allegedly having failed to lodge an account of election expenses
within time and in the manner prescribed by State Election
Commission, without offering any good reason or justification for
such failure – Held: No remedy of appeal is envisaged against an
order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee - the Collector,
u/s.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.
Appeal – An appeal cannot lie before the same Authority/
functionary who had passed the order of rejection of prayer.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The power under Section 14B(2) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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 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). [Para 14][1041-F-H; 1042-A]
2. 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.
[Para 18][1043-F-G]
3. 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.
[Para 21][1044-E-F]
Suchita Murlidhar Kewati (Sarpanch) & Ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 414 and Shri
Gulabrao vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Decision
of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 12276/2021 decided
on 3.12.2021) – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 55 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.
9244 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2022.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv. for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Shirish K. Deshpande,
Sachin Patil, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of

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