In a reprieve to a 62-year-old man, a deputy Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in Wai Taluka, Satara, the Bombay High Court has restored his position and has quashed the orders disqualifying him from the post. He was disqualified for alleged default in paying property tax assessed to the tune of Rs 4,357.
A bench of Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav was hearing a plea filed by Anil Jagtap, who was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat in February 2017.
However, the other two members in the Panchayat, claimed that Jagtap defaulted in paying his property tax for the year of 2017 within a period of six months of receiving the bill. They accordingly invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and submitted a report to the Divisional Commissioner of Pune to disqualify Jagtap from his post.
In the report, the other members, who were alleged rivals of Jagtap, claimed that the bill for the property tax was served upon one Dashrath Kadam, the driver of Jagtap and despite this, he didn’t pay the tax.
On the other hand, Jagtap claimed that he was never been served with the bill for payment of property tax. He even claimed that he has no driver or servant named Dashrath Kadam.
“This disqualification is a very serious matter and it will not be just to presume anything leading to such disqualification. Such disqualification provision requires strict adherence and compliance to the rule of law,” the bench observed while noting the facts of the case.
The bench said that the other members of the Panchayat should have had established that there was a failure on the part of Jagtap to pay the property tax to the Gram Panchayat within six months from the date on which the demand notice/bill is presented to him and that it was
duly served on him and received by him.
“In the present case it also cannot be ruled out that due to rivalry between the other members and Jagtap, the present situation may have arisen as he has pleaded fraud and fabrication of the acknowledgement receipt/office copy,” the bench opined.
Scrutinizing the material on record, the judges said, “It is clear that the property tax bill has not been duly served on Jagtap; the Additional Divisional Commissioner has not established the veracity of the recipient of the bill or examined Dashrath Kadam, the members have also failed to establish the identity of Dashrath Kadam and thus it cannot be said that the property tax bill was duly served upon him by the Gram Panchayat.”
“Jagtap cannot be said to have knowledge of the outstanding demand of property tax being duly served on him. The other members’ failure to prove this is evident from the facts presented before us; therefore he cannot be said to have incurred disqualification as the member of the Gram Panchayat,” the judges opined.
“The statutory provisions for seeking disqualification must be strictly construed, not only must there be a proof of the presentation of the property tax bill along with the proof of receipt by the person, but the date of such presentation must also be proved to ascertain if there has been a failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period of six months from the date of demand,” the bench held.
(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper’s PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
Published on: Thursday, March 03, 2022, 10:49 PM IST
