Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. V. M. Mali, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 – State.

2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat has been served. However, none has filed appearance for the respondent No.4.

3. In view of the urgency, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing immediately, as the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 28th April 2026.

4. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 15th April, 2026 passed by respondent No. 1 – Returning Officer, holding that the nomination form of respondent No. 3 for the post of Member of the Gram Panchayat is valid and legal.

5. It is the submission of Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that Respondent No. 3, having been disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for the sake of brevity to be called as the “said Act”), for the tenure of 2022–2027, is not qualified to contest the bye-election for the post of Member which has fallen vacant due to the disqualification of Respondent No.3. In support of his contention, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon Section 13 of the said Act, and more particularly Section 13(2). He also relies on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai Versus Additional Commissioner And Others((2018) 18 SCC 196), the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others(2018(4) Mh.L.J.] 911) and Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Others(2017 (1) Mh.L.J.] 79)

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shantibhushan Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, submits that although Respondent No.3 has been disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act, and such disqualification has been confirmed up to the High Court, he is nevertheless entitled to contest the bye-election for the post which has fallen vacant on account of his disqualification. He further submits that, in any event, since his nomination has been accepted, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the action of the Returning Officer in accepting the nomination by filing an Election Petition under Section 15 of the said Act. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, relied on Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer And Another((2003) 4 MhLJ 359), on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchand Hirachand Kothadiya And Others Vs. District Deputy Collector, Baramati Division, Poona And Others((1955) AIR (Bombay) 154) and also on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Amol Sahebrao Solanke Vs. The Tahsildar And Others((2016) 1 MhLJ 189)

7. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the relevant factual aspects :-

                    (i) The tenure for which the elections were initially held for the posts of Members of Gram Panchayat, Haroli, was for the period 2022 to 2027. In the said election, respondent No. 3 – Mahaveer Balaso Chowgule was elected as a Member.

                    (ii) The petitioner filed Gram Panchayat Dispute No.16 of 2023 before the Collector, Kolhapur, seeking disqualification of respondent No.3.

                    (iii) By order dated 15th May, 2024, the Collector, Kolhapur, disqualified Respondent No. 3 under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act on the ground that respondent No. 3 had failed to pay tax within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee was demanded and the bill for the purpose was duly served upon him.

                    (iv) The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, under Section 16 of the said Act, and the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 26th September 2024 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.

                    (v) The said orders of the Collector, Kolhapur, and Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, were challenged before a learned Single Judge by filing Writ Petition No.16283 of 2024. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition by upholding the order of the Collector, Kolhapur, as also the order of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. It is relevant to note the observations of the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition No.16283 of 2024 by order dated 28th January 2025 and more particularly, the paragraph No.17 of the said order, which reads as under :

                    “17. The objective behind incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in the Village Panchayats Act must be borne in mind. The objective is to ensure that a resident of village, who is vying to occupy responsible post of member, Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must come clean by ensuring that there are no arrears of taxes or fees payable to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. Keeping this broad objective in mind, the disqualification of the Petitioner in the present case, appears to have been correctly effected who has deliberately not paid property taxes in respect of the two houses while paying the same in respect of one house. Even if there are multiple heirs entitled to succeed to the said two house properties, since Petitioner desired contesting of elections, he ought to have ensured that the property tax Bills are paid within the stipulated time so as not to incur disqualification considering the provisions of Exception-2 to Section 14(1)(h). I am unable to trace any patent error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector, Kolhapur and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune.”

                    (Emphasis added)

Thus, what the learned Single Judge has held that the objective behind incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in the said Act, is to ensure that a resident of village, who is to occupy responsible post of member, Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must come clean by ensuring that there are no arrears of taxes or fees payable to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. It has been further held that the disqualification of the respondent No.3 has been correctly effected who has deliberately not paid property taxes in respect of the two houses while paying the same in respect of one house. It has been further held that, as the respondent No.3 is desirous of contesting election, he ought to have ensured that the property tax Bills are paid within the stipulated time so as not to incur disqualification considering the provisions of Exception-2 to Section 14(1)(h).

(vi) As the post of Member has become vacant due to disqualification of the respondent No.3, the election programme was declared on 30th March 2026. As per the said election programme the nomination forms are to be submitted upto 13th April 2026, scrutiny of nominations is to be made on 15th April 2026, nominations can be withdrawn till 17th April 2026 and if required election is to be held on 28th April 2026.

(vii) It is significant to note that the respondent No.3 submitted the nomination form for the said election to be held pursuant to notice dated 30th March 2026 and stated on oath that he has not been disqualified under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner raised an objection before the respondent No.1 and produced the orders disqualifying the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 dismissed the petitioner’s objection and held that the respondent No.3 is qualified to contest the bye-election. The Returning Officer while accepting the nomination of the respondent No.3 has inter alia given following reasons :

                   

                    (Emphasis added)

Thus, what the Returning Officer has held is that respondent No.3 has deposited the arrears of tax and has submitted a certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Haroli dated 10th April, 2026. However, a perusal of the said certificate dated 10th April, 2026 shows that no particulars are given regarding payment of the said arrears of tax. In any case, it is an admitted position that Respondent No. 3 was disqualified on account of failure to pay the tax as more particularly set out hereinabove.

8. Thus, in view of the factual position, it is necessary to consider the legality and validity of the impugned order by which the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination form of the respondent No.3 by rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. For appreciating the legality and validity of the impugned order, it is necessary to set out the certain provisions of the said Act. Sections 10(1)(a)(i), 11(2), 11(3) and 27 of the said Act are reproduced herein below :-

                    “10. Constitution of Panchayats

                    (1) …

                    (a) A panchayat shall consist of,-

                    (i) Such number of members not being less than seven and not more than seventeen as the State Government may prescribe who shall be elected in accordance with Section 11:

                    ……..”

                    “11. Election

                    (1) ……..

                    (2) The election of members of panchayat or election to fill any vacancy shall be held on such date as the State Election Commission may appoint in this behalf.

                    (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, if the vacancy of a member occurs within six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the members preceding the date on which the term of office of the members of the panchayat expires under Section 27(1), the vacancy shall not be filled.

                    (4) …..”

                    “27. Term of office of members

                    (1) The members of a panchayat, shall save as otherwise provided in the said Act, hold office for a term of five years.

                    (2) …….”

Section 10 of the said Act provides for constitution of Panchayats. Section 10(1)(a)(i) provides that a panchayat shall consists of such number of members not being less than 7 and not more than 17, as the State Government prescribed, who shall be elected in accordance with Section 11. Section 11 is regarding an election to constitute a panchayat. Section 11(2) provides that the election of members of panchayat or election to fill any vacancy shall be held on such date as the State Election Commission may appoint in this behalf. Section 11(3) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, if the vacancy of a member occurs within six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the members preceding the date on which the term of office of the members of the panchayat expires under Section 27, the vacancy shall not be filled. Section 27 provides that the members of a panchayat, shall save as otherwise provided in the said Act, hold office for a term of five years.

9. Thus, it is clear that the election for such vacancy is for the period of term of office of members as contemplated under Section 27 of the said Act, which in this case is for the period from 2022 to 2027.

10. As set out hereinabove, it is admitted position that the respondent No.3 contested for the election which has been held for the period of 2022 to 2027 and he has been disqualified as a member.

11. In this background of this matter, it is relevant to note the Section 13 of the said Act, which reads as under :

                    “13. Persons qualified to vote and be elected

                    (1) Every person whose name is in the list of voters shall, unless disqualified under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to vote at the election of, a member for the ward to which [such list pertains and, Sarpanch of panchayat to be elected directly.

                    (2) Every person whose name is in the list of voters and who is not less than twenty-one years of age on the last date fixed for making nomination for every general election or bye-election shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member from any ward of the village or for Sarpanch of panchayat. No person whose name is not entered in the list of voters for such village shall be qualified to be elected as a member of any ward of the village or Sarpanch of panchayat.

                    (2A) Every person who is not less than 21 years of age on the last date fixed for making nomination for every general election or bye-election and whose name is in the list of voters and who is born on or after 1st January 1995, and who is not disqualified under this Act, or under any other law for the time being in force shall, unless possesses minimum 7th standard of school education passing certificate or acquired educational qualification equivalent to 7th standard, as certified by the competent authority, be qualified to be elected as member.

                    (3) Subject to any disqualification incurred by a person, the list of voters, shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining under this section whether any person is qualified or is not qualified to vote, or as the case may be, is qualified or is not qualified to be elected, at any election.”

Section 13(2) of the said Act provides that every person whose name is in the list of voters and who is not less than twenty-one years of age on the last date fixed for making nomination for every general election or bye-election shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member from any ward of the village or for Sarpanch of panchayat. Section 13(3) provides that Subject to any disqualification incurred by a person, the list of voters, shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining under this section whether any person is qualified or is not qualified to vote, or as the case may be, is qualified or is not qualified to be elected, at any election.

12. It is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that although it is correct that for the election which has been held for the period of 2022 to 2027, the respondent No.3 has been disqualified, and therefore, now the by-election is being conducted for the said vacant post, however, as the respondent No.3 has now paid the tax, he can not be held to be disqualified for the purpose of bye-election.

13. Section 13 of the said Act has been interpreted by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the Case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi (supra). The relevant paragraph numbers of the said Judgment are 15 to 18, read as under :

                    “15. This section clearly lays down that if any person is disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act or under any other law, he would not be entitled to contest the election of Sarpanch. As per order of Collector, Dhule dt 3-11- 2014, the petitioner had not disclosed his expenses of the election held for membership of Zilla Parishad in 2013. Even after show-cause notices he failed to submit the expenses within time and therefore he was disqualified.

                    16. In the present case, the State Election Commission has delegated its powers to Collector, Dhule to pass order regarding the disqualification which the Collector, Dhule exercised and passed the order of disqualification for five years from 3-11- 2014, obviously on the date when respondent No. 5 submitted nomination for candidature as Sarpanch for Fagane on 22-9- 2017. He was already disqualified under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and it was existing. This disqualification will be applicable to the elections of Sarpanch as per the express language used in section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the Notification dt. 1- 9-2017. The arguments of learned advocate Shri Sapkal that the disqualification will apply only to the election under particular Act cannot be accepted as it is contrary to the plain language. In 1955, the language of disqualification in section 3(d) of the Municipalities Act was different. The word 'in this behalf was used and the argument was advanced that those related to disqualification under particular act only but even this argument was not accepted in Sadasheo vs. Hemaji (supra).

                    17. We find that, the Returning Officer has taken a stand totally contradictory to the provisions of law while upholding the nomination of respondent No. 5. Since respondent No. 5 was disqualified but was allowed to contest the election, the whole election stands vitiated.

                    18. The disqualification of respondent No. 5 will not lead to declaring the petitioner as Sarpanch as the election itself stands vitiated. Therefore, the prayer for declaring the petitioner as elected Sarpanch deserves to be rejected.”

                    (Emphasis added)

Thus, what has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi (supra), is that the only remedy provided to challenge the order of rejecting or accepting the nomination is by way of Election Petition to be presented after the election is over, and even the High Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the intermediate period. However, if there are illegalities in the election, the same may have the effect of vitiating the election.

14. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent No.3, though elected as a member, has been disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act for non-payment of taxes within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee was demanded, and the bill for the purpose was duly served upon him.

15. It is also significant to note that the Explanation-2 for the purpose of Clause (h) which provides that, a person shall not be deemed to disqualify if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of the candidates. It is also an admitted position that the present bye-election is for the post which has fallen vacant on account of the respondent No.3 having been declared disqualified.

16. It is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, that in view of Explanation-2(i), since he has paid the amount of tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for nomination of candidates, and as such payment was made before the nomination for the bye-election, his nomination has been validly accepted.

17. However, Section 13 of the said Act, specifically provides that every person whose name is in the list of voters and who is not less than twenty-one years of age on the last date fixed for making nomination for every general election or bye-election shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member from any ward of the village or for Sarpanch of panchayat. Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 provides that subject to any disqualification incurred by a person, the list of voters, shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose fo determining under this section whether any person is qualified or is not qualified to vote, or as the case may be, is qualified or is not qualified to be elected, at any election.

18. Section 14 of the said Act which is regarding disqualification is set out herein below:-

                    “14. Disqualifications

                    (1) No person shall be a member of a panchayat continue as such, who-

                    (a) has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been convicted-

                    (i) of an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, or under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or any law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since his conviction, or

                    (ii) of any other offence and been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of six years, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since his release; or

                    (a-1) has been disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the Maharashtra State:

                    Provided that, no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years);

                    (b) has been adjuged by a competent Court to be of unsound mind;

                    (c) has been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained his discharge; or

                    (c-1) having held any office under any Government or local authority, has whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been dismissed for misconduct, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his dismissal; or

                    (d) has been removed from office under sub-section (1) of section 39 and a period of six years has not elapsed from the date of such removal, unless he has, by an order of the State Government notified in the Official Gazette, been relieved from the disqualification arising on account of such removal from office; or

                    (e) has been disqualified from holding office under sub- section (2) of section 39 and the period for which he was so disqualified has not elapsed; or

                    (f) holds any salaried office or place of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat, while holding such office or place; or

                    (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

                    (h) fails to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat [or the Zilla Parishad within three months from the date on which the amount of such tax or fee is demanded, and a bill for the purpose is duly served on him; or

                    (h-1) fails to pay the amount of surcharge or charge under section 140 or the amount ordered to be paid under section 178 together with interest, if any, within the period provided in that behalf, and where an appeal has been made, then within one month from the date of receipt of the decision rejecting such appeal;

                    (i) is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local authority; or

                    (j) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; or

                    (j-1) has more than two children:

                    Provided that, a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Bombay Village Panchayats and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as "the date of such commencement"), shall not be disqualified under this clause so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase:

                    Provided further that, a child or more than one child born in single delivery within the period of one year from the date of such commencement shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification mentioned in this clause; or

                    (j-2) has been elected as a Councillor of the Zilla Parishad or as a member of the Panchayat Samiti; or

                    (j-3) has encroached upon the Government land or public property; or

                    (j-4) has been disqualified by the State Election Commission under section 14B; or

                    (j-5) fails to submit a certificate of the concerned panchayat, alongwith the resolution of the Gram Sabha or of the Chief Executive Officer or an officer designated by him; or a self certificate certifying that,-

                    (i) he resides in a house owned by him and has a toilet in such house and he regularly uses such toilet; or

                    (ii) he resides in a house not owned by him and has a toilet in such house and he regularly uses the public toilet:

                    Provided that, no member of a panchayat shall be disqualified under this clause, if he submits such certificate to the Block Development Officer, within a period of one year from the 10th January, 2011, being the date of commencement of the Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010:

                    Provided further that, nothing contained in this clause shall affect the member holding office on the 10th January, 2011, who has not submitted the certificate within a period of ninety days from the said date, as required under the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010, and he shall not be deemed to be disqualified and shall continue to hold his office for a period of one year from the said date, unless he is disqualified under any other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force; or

                    (k) is disqualified under any other provisions of this Act, and the period for which he was so disqualified has not elapsed. Explanation 1.- A person shall not, by reason only of his being a shareholder in or a member of, any incorporated or registered company or a co-operative society registered under any law for the time being in force in the [State of Maharashtra] be held to be interested in any contract entered into between the company or co-operative society and the panchayat.

                    Explanation 1A. A person shall not be disqualified under clause (g) by reason only of such person, -

                    (i) having a share or an interest in any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs of the panchayat is inserted; or

                    (ii) having a share or a interest in the occasional sale to the panchayat of any article in which he regularly trades, or in the purchase from the panchayat of any article, of a value in either case not exceeding in any financial year two hundred rupees; or

                    (iii) having a share or interest in the occasional letting out on hire to the panchayat or in the hiring from the panchayat of any article for an amount not exceeding in any financial year twenty-five rupees or such higher amount not exceeding one hundred rupees, as the panchayat, with the sanction of the Collector may fix in the behalf; or

                    (iv) having any share or interest in any lease for a period not exceeding ten years, of any immovable property or in agreement for the same, and before such lease or agreement is executed, the Block Development Officer certifies that no other suitable premises were available to the panchayat on lease.

                    Explanation 2.- For the purpose of clause (h)-

                    (i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid the amount of any tax or fee due, prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates;

          (ii) failure to pay any tax or fee due to the panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu family, or by a person belonging to a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify all members of such undivided Hindu family or as the case may be all the members of such group or unit.

                    Explanation 3. For the purposes of clause (i), a Police Patil appointed under section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967, shall be deemed to be a servant of Government.

                    Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (g), a person shall not be deemed to have any share or interest in any employment by reason only of any relation of his being employed with or under a panchayat, as an officer or servant thereof.

                    Explanation 5.- for the purpose of clause (j-1),-

                    (i) where a couple has only one child on or after the date of such commencement, any number of children born out of a single subsequent delivery shall be deemed to be one entity;

                    (ii) "child" does not include an adopted child or children.”

                    (Emphasis added)

19. For appreciating the contention raised by Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Section 14 contemplates various Acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transaction etc. for incurring the disqualification. Every disqualification is of different nature. Sub Section (j-1) of Section 14(1) provides that no person shall be a member of panchayat continue as such, who has more than two children. Thus, such a person incur disqualification for life time.

20. As far as a person who has been convicted of an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, or under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or any law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State, unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since the conviction, or of any other offence and been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of six year, or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since his release is the period of disqualification. Thus, in this case under Sub section 1(a) of Section 14 of the said Act, a prescribed period is provided.

21. Sub Section 1(c) of Section 14 of the said Act provides that no person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such, who has been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained his discharge. Thus, it is very clear that such person’s disqualification will continue until he has not obtained discharge.

22. Subsection 14 of the said Act provides that where a person having held any office under any Government or local authority, has whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been dismissed for misconduct, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his dismissal. Thus, there are various provisions are made where disqualification is provided specifically for a particular period.

23. In view of the same, it is the submission of Mr. Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that, as no such period is provided, the disqualification will be only up to the period till when the said taxes are not paid.

24. The said submission is contrary to the scheme of the said Act. If such submission is accepted, the person who has contested the election and has failed to pay any tax can pay the tax during disqualification proceedings and then in that case he can not be declared as disqualified.

25. It is very clear that where specific period is provided under Section 14 of the said Act, the disqualification will be for that period and as far as the other provisions are concerned, it will be term of office of members of panchayat. It is equally clear that, otherwise, a person who has encroached upon Government land or public property and is liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3), after suffering such disqualification, could remove the encroachment and again contest the bye-election held for the post which has fallen vacant due to his disqualification and will submit that he is not disqualified now. This is not the scheme of Section 14 of the said Act relating to disqualification. Therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge while upholding the disqualification are very important.

26. The learned Single Judge has observed that the objective behind incorporation of Section 14(1)(h) in the Village Panchayat Act is to ensure that a resident of village, who is intended to occupy responsible post of member, Upasarpanch or Sarpanch must come clean by ensuring that there are no arrears of taxes or fees payable to Panchayat or Zilla Parishad. In fact, the observations of learned Single Judge in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra), and more particularly in paragraph No.11 are very important. The said paragraph No.11 reads as under :

                    “11. It is in the background of the aforesaid provisions of law, that the provisions of qualifications and disqualifications to vote, contest the election and being continued as a member of Panchayat, are required to be considered. Section 13 of the said Act deals with the persons qualified to vote and be elected. The persons incurring any disqualification under the provisions of the said Act are neither qualified to vote nor to be elected as a member of a Panchayat. Section 14 deals with different kinds of disqualifications, as stipulated in clauses (a) to (k) under sub- section (1), which operate against two kinds of persons (i) who proposes to become a member of a Panchayat, and (ii) who has become a member of a Panchayat. If a person has incurred any one or more disqualifications, then he is prohibited from becoming a member of a Panchayat, and if he becomes a member of a Panchayat, then he is not entitled to continue as such. The disqualification under section 14 is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transactions, etc, which have been done, happened or occurred before entering into the office as a member of a Panchayat as well as those which take place during continuance as a member of a Panchayat.”

                    (Emphasis added)

27. Thus, it is clear that if a person has incurred any one or more disqualifications then he is prohibited from becoming a member of a Panchayat, and if he becomes a member of a Panchayat, then he is not entitled to continue as such. The disqualification under Section 14 of the said Act is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds transactions, etc. which have been done, happened or occurred before entering into the office as a member of Panchayat as well as those which take place during continuance as a member of a Panchayat.

28. It is required to be noted that this is a bye-election for the seat of member which seat has become vacant as the Respondent No.3 has been declared as disqualified and now again the Respondent No.3 has submitted the nomination for said bye-election and his nomination is accepted. Thus, the person who has incurred disqualification when the election has taken place for the said Panchayat, got elected and held to be disqualified can not be held to be qualified as he removes the said disqualification by the time bye-election is declared. What is important is as held by a learned single Judge in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra), that the disqualification under Section 14 of the said Act is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds transactions, etc. which have been done, happened or occurred before entering into the office as a member of Panchayat as well as those which take place during continuance as a member of a Panchayat.

29. If the scheme of Sections 13 and 14 of the said Act is interpreted in the manner in which learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 is contending then in that case a person who has suffered disqualification and contested the said disqualification up to the High court, is being awarded by giving a chance of removal of the reason for disqualification, and again allowing him to contest the bye-election for the same tenure of Village Panchayat.

30. It is required to be noted that this is a bye-election for the election which has taken place for the period of 2022 to 2027, and therefore, Section 14 read with Section 13 of the said act is required to be interpreted in the manner in which it has been interpreted in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra).

31. It is significant to note that in the case of Janabai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically approved what has been held by learned single Judge in the case of Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade (supra). The paragraph No.28 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :

                    28. Section 184 of the Act provides that every Member of the panchayat and every officer and servant maintained by or being employed under the panchayat shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purpose of Section 21 of the b Penal Code, 1860. Analysing the various provisions, the learned Single Judge in Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade has opined: (SCC OnLine Bom para 11)

                    “11. It is if the background of the aforesaid provisions of law, that the provisions of qualifications and disqualifications to vote, contest the election and being continued as a member of panchayat, are required to be considered. Section 13 of the said Act deals with the persons qualified to vote and be elected. The persons incurring any disqualification under the provisions of the said Act are neither qualified to vote nor to be elected as a member of a panchayat. Section 14 deals with different kinds of disqualifications, as stipulated in clauses (a) to (k) under sub-section (1). which operate against two kinds of persons (1) who proposes to become a member of a panchayat, and (ii) who has become a member of a panchayat. If a person has incurred any one or more disqualifications, then he is prohibited from becoming a member of a panchayat, and if he becomes a member of a panchayat, then he is not entitled to continue as such. The disqualification under Section 14 is in respect of the acts, events, deeds, misdeeds, transactions, etc. which have been done, happened or occurred before entering into the office as a member of a panchayat as well as those Which take place during continuance as a member of a panchayat."

                    And again: (SCC OnLine Bom para 13)

                    "13. The very object of introducing the provision of disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act is to avoid the conflict of interest by prohibiting the persons, who are the encroachers upon the government land or public property to get elected or continued as a member of the panchayat, which is a democratically elected body of the villagers. It is beyond comprehension to assume that a person under statutory obligation or a duty to protect the government land or public property from encroachment, commits an act of such encroachment. To permit person, who proposes to become a member or becomes a member of the panchayat to be the encroacher upon the government land or public property, would be anathematic, acting in breach of statutory duty, exposing himself to prosecution under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 53, resulting ultimately in losing the protection under Section 180 read with Section 184 of the said Act. It is in this context that the text of disqualification under Section 14(1)(1- 3) of the said Act is required to be analysed and interpreted."

                    (Emphasis added)

32. Thus, it is clear that the said disqualification which has been as contemplated under Section 14 of the said Act where specific time limit is not provided, or such as, like having more than two children which disqualification for the entire life have to be held as disqualification for the term of members of a Panchayat i.e. for a period of five years, and in the present case, which is for the period from 2022 to 2027.

33. Thus, for the above reasons, the order dated 15th April 2026 passed by respondent No.1 – Returning Officer is quashed and set aside. However, it is required to be noted that although the petitioner has not sought relief of declaring him as elected member, the effect of setting aside the impugned order of accepting nomination of respondent No.3 may be the same. However, as held by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi (supra), the election itself stands vitiated, and therefore, it is made very clear that in view of setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 – Returning Officer, it can not be held that the petitioner stands elected as a member.

34. It is made very clear that disqualification of respondent No.3 will not lead to declaring the petitioner as a member, as the election itself stands vitiated.

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs.