VIRENDRASING versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
VIRENDRASING
v.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1715 of 2023)
APRIL 17, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961 : ss. 16(1)(i), 40 – Disqualification – Appellant elected as a
member of the Zilla Parishad – Petition by respondent no.3 u/ss. 40
and 16(1)(i) claiming appellant’s disqualification on the ground
that the appellant had misused his elected post for gaining undue
personal financial benefit whereby in E-tender floated for the
project, work order was issued in favour of the appellant’s son –
Application allowed by Divisional Commissioner – Writ petition
thereagainst dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held
:Salutory purpose of disqualification provisions was to ensure the
purity of administration in Municipal Committee – On facts, it was
not even a situation where the appellant’s son was carrying on any
existing contractual work – It was only soon after the election of
the appellant that his son was registered as a contractor – Only
contract awarded to him was the one where the funds flowed to the
Gram Panchayat from the Zilla Parishad of which the appellant
was a member – Moreover, issuance of the work order by the Zilla
Parishad itself shows the Zilla Parishad’s supervisory and
sanctioning role in the contract, which falls within the wide ambit
of s. 16(1)(i) – Probity in such financial transactions should be the
rule rather than the exception – Appellant had a greater
responsibility as a father to make sure that his son does not enter
into a contract that is sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad itself – Order
passed by the High Court is upheld – Consequential disqualification
would take effect from the date of the judgment.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The objective of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is to introduce local self-
governance and administration at the grassroots, and to entrust
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 790
790
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
Zilla Parishads with the execution of works and developmental
schemes of the State Government. It is in this conspectus that
the said Act provides for the disqualification of elected
representatives. Having been conferred with major financial
responsibilities, the statute maintains a system of checks and
balances to ensure transparency in local contracts and to obviate
the possibility of elected representatives exercising undue
influence. It is no doubt true that elected representatives should
not be disqualified on flimsy grounds. However, the statutory
mandate is equally binding, whereby activities which tend to
defeat the objective of transparency should not be permitted to
prevail. [Para 15][799-C-D]
1.2 The legislature in its wisdom has defined the grounds
for disqualification in expansive terms under Section 16(1)(i) of
the Act. Thus, the use of the terminology - ‘directly or indirectly’,
‘by himself or by his partner’, ‘any share or interest in any work
done’, ‘by order of Zilla Parishad or in any contract with’, and ‘by
or on behalf of the Zilla Parishad’. All eventualities where the
councillor can be said to have any financial connection with the
work of the Zilla Parishad were sought to be included, with the
object of discouraging the practice of financial patronage that is
inherently beneficial to the elected representatives. [Para 16][799-
E-F]
1.3. This was not even a situation where the appellant’s
son was carrying on any existing contractual work. It was only
soon after the election of the appellant that his son was registered
as a contractor. He had no other contracts in that area or
otherwise. The only contract awarded to him was the one where
the funds flowed to the Gram Panchayat from the Zilla Parishad
of which the appellant was a member. The appellant had attempted
to justify this situation by claiming that his son was registered as
a contractor soon after the appellant’s election as he had just
completed his studies. This fact raises further suspicions about
the appellant’s interest in his son’s business. [Para 20][800-E-G]
1.4. The Zilla Parishad, Dhule issued a work order to the
Aarave Gram Panchayat for the repair of roads on 09.06.2020.
This document, and the Zilla Parishad’s counter affidavit, reveal
VIRENDRASING v. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
that the funds flowed from t

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