1) By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 90/2025, disqualifying the petitioner under section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for having taken illegal commercial water connection while acting as a Sarpanch.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is summarized as under :-

The petitioner is the elected Member of the Gram Pancyayat for the period between 2021 to 2026 and later on elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Padalidariya. The present respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed an application under section 14(1)(g) of the Act before the Collector, Ahilyanagar for disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat by contending that the petitioner has taken undue advantage of his position and sought commercial water connection for providing water to his Trimurti Industries Padalidariya from the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also got sanctioned the resolution in the Gram Panchayat meeting dated 25.12.2020 and has taken the commercial water connection under the Government scheme. The Government scheme particularly related to supply of water to the villagers. Since the petitioner has taken commercial water connection, supply of water to the villagers was affected and as such, respondent Nos. 7 to 9 sought disqualification of the petitioner u/s. 14 (1)(g) of the Act.

3) The petitioner contested the dispute filed before the Collector. The Collector, on appreciation of the material on record, observed that the petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.4000/- towards connection charges and has also paid monthly charges of Rs.1000/- towards commercial water charges to the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that whenever there was shortfall of water, connection of the petitioner was stopped. Considering the material available on record, the Collector held that the allegations made against the petitioner are not covered under section 14 (1)(g) of the Act.

4) The said order of the Collector was challenged by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 before respondent No. 2 – The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The respondent No. 2 by the order dated 1.10.2025, disqualified the petitioner under section 14(1)(g) of the Act by observing that the water scheme is implemented by the Central Government for drinking purpose and the water could not have been utilized for the commercial purpose. There is reference in order of monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 1.9.2023 by which it was decided to stop the commercial water connection given to the petitioner. However, it was also observed in the impugned order that the permission to the petitioner was given for taking commercial water connection by virtue of resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25.1.2020 and as such, from the year 2020 to 2023 the petitioner was utilizing the water connection for commercial purpose. Considering the material available, the Divisional Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner under section 14 (1)(g) of the Act as a member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.

5) Challenging the impugned order dated 1.10.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, Mr. Yogesh Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner does not fall within the provision of section 14(1)(g) of the Act as it relates to disqualification of the member of the Panchayat, who has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or in any contract with by or on behalf of or employment with or under the panchayat. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 9.6.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7067/2022 in the case of Nilesh Vs. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and Ors.

6) Per contra, Mr. D.A. Mane, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 submits that the petitioner by taking commercial water connection has become liable under section 14 (1)(g) of the Act for disqualification. The learned counsel submits that the water scheme is implemented for the villagers of Gram Panchayat and the water provided in that scheme could not have been utilized for commercial purpose and that the water provided under Government scheme was utilized by the petitioner for packaged drinking water. The learned counsel submits that under Right to Information Act, information was sought and it was informed that no commercial water connection is permissible under National Jal Jivan Mission scheme of the Central Government and therefore, the petitioner having taken the commercial water connection has incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 12.8.2025 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6362 of 2025 in the case of Janardan Laxman Pawar Vs. Yogesh Chandrabhan Pawar and ors.

7) The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner took commercial water connection under the scheme of Central Government named and styled as National Jal Jivan Mission. It is stated that such connection could not have been granted to the petitioner for commercial purpose. There is some dispute on this aspect, whether the connection could have been granted for commercial purpose or not.

8) The case of Nilesh cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to allegation that the amount of Rs.15,000/- was sanctioned towards conference charges/taxi charges for attending the conference and the petitioner therein has illegally paid Rs.15,000/- to the taxi driver. This Court in the case of Nilesh supra has held that even if the allegations are taken on its face value, it can be only said that it does not attract section 14(1)(g) of the Act and disqualification under section 14(1)(g) only relates to work done when the elected member of the Village Panchayat has directly or indirectly share or interest in any work done by orderof panchayat or in any contract with by or on behalf of or employment with or under the panchayat.

9) Per contra, the judgment in the case of Janardan Pawar cited supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is with regard to the allegations that the petitioner therein had indulged in misappropriation of the Village Panchayat funds by accepting a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- vide cheques of Village Panchayat and although the proof was not submitted as regards the reason for disbursement, the amount was disbursed. The Court has observed that if the object of prescribing disqualification is to maintain purity in the administration of the local self-government bodies, the plain words of the statute cannot be construed in a constricted manner and has disqualified the petitioner therein for having derived pecuniary interest by receiving Rs. 1,70,000/- in his account, the money which was paid by the Panchayat to him. As such, in that case, there was no explanation as regards credit of substantial amount in the account of the petitioner therein. The court has observed that there could be some situations where same act may fall within the ambit of section 14(1)(g) and section 39(1)(i) of the Act and deriving undue pecuniary interest by way of share or interest in the work or contract of the Village Panchayat may also amount to misconduct under Clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 39 of the Act.

10) Considered the rival submissions and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. For ready reference section 14(1)(g) is quoted as under :-

                   “14. Disqualifications – (1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat continues as such, who-

                   (a) ………

                   (g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under the Panchayat, or”

11) Section 14 (1)(g) contemplates disqualification of the elected member for having directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of the Panchayat or in any contract with by or on behalf of or employment with or under the Panchayat. There should be direct connection of receiving monitory benefit by the elected member in respect of work undertaken by the panchayat or from the order of panchayat. In the instant case, prima facie, it appears that this has not happened. The facts of this case do not disclose that the petitioner has received monetory benefit from the Panchayat for any work done or contract of the Panchayat. Thus, the petitioner would not incur disqualification under section 14(1)(g) of the Act. The judgment of this Court in the case of Nilesh cited supra comes to an aid to the petitioner. The judgment in the case of Janardhan Pawar cited supra relates to fact whether there is direct pecuniary interest received into the account of the petitioner therein from some work done of the Panchayat. Although exact proof was not there regarding the work done, but the amounts were received by the petitioner therein from Panchayat. In the instant case, the petitioner has deposited and paid amounts to the Panchayat towards alleged illegal commercial water connection. Thus, the facts in the case of Janardhan Pawar shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

12) Similarly in another judgment and order dated 22.7.2008 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5681/2007 of this Court in the case of Shri Rambhau Narayan Bhomle Vs. State of Maharashtra and others this court has observed that the petitioner therein had collected Rs.250/- towards transport charges from the Panchayat and thus the act of the petitioner therein clearly comes within the purview of section 14(1)(g) of the Act since this amounts to having been interested in the work done of the Panchayat as such the petitioner therein has incurred disqualification. In the instant case, it appears that the case against the petitioner does not fall within section 14(1)(g) of the Act, although it may qualify for disqualification under any other provisions relating to the misconduct. But in the facts of this case there is no overlap covering section 14(1)(g) also. The case would not fall under section 14(1)(g) primarily for the reason that there is no monetary benefit received from any contract with the Panchayat or of any work done on the order of the Panchayat. Section 14(1)(g) would not cover every misconduct. However, there can be overlap as noted in the case of Janardhan Pawar supra. Considering the same, this Court is of the view of that the impugned order dated 1.10.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, disqualifying the petitioner as elected member and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat is erroneous and is thus quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed and disposed off accordingly.