Shaikh Wahed Yakub Vs Additional Commissioner (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that disqualification of village panchayat member under section 41(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act merely because of non-payment of Grampanchayat taxes not justified.
Facts- This petition arises out of the proceedings taken under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, for declaration that the Sarpanch of the village has incurred disqualification u/s. 41(1)(h) of the said Act. The challenge is raised to an order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar dated 08.02.2024 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The petitioner had initiated proceedings against respondent No.4 to declare her disqualified for non-payment of the Grampanchayat taxes.
The allegations in the petition, in short, are that respondent No. 4 came to be elected as a Member of Grampanchayat, Chitegaon. Respondent No.5 is her son. It is alleged that both are in arrears of taxes of the Grampanchayat. When notice for taxes was tried to be served upon them, the same is not The property is a godown in Gat No. 233 standing in the name of respondent No.4.
Conclusion- Held that merely because a person has not paid taxes is not sufficient to disqualify such Member. It needs to be shown that inspite of notice, there is no payment of taxes within 90 days from the date of issuance of notice. What therefore required to be proved is that the notice is duly served upon such person and 90 days have passed thereafter. In the present case, service of notice itself is disputed by the It was necessary in view of this to see as to whether there is really service of notice. As has come on record that though panchanama was prepared, it is not signed in presence of panchas. There is also no evidence that notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the house of the respondents. Even the employees, who allegedly sent to serve the notice have given statement that the signatures appearing on the alleged panchanama are not their signatures.
