Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a municipal councillor’s disqualification based on unauthorised temporary structures erected by her husband. The first limb of Section 44(1)(e) applied to unlawful construction by the councillor, spouse or dependent without requiring proof of the councillor’s participation or knowledge. Disqualification was an independent statutory consequence and did not require prior criminal conviction. Although the challenge concerning other construction under deemed permission was not pressed successfully, the temporary structures independently supported disqualification.
Issues
- Whether construction by a spouse required proof of the councillor’s knowledge or involvement.
- Whether criminal proceedings or conviction were prerequisites to disqualification.
- Whether the unauthorised temporary structures sustained the impugned order.
Provisions considered
- Section 44(1)(e), Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965The first limb independently disqualifies a councillor for unlawful construction by the councillor, spouse or dependent; involvement requirements in the other limbs do not qualify that rule. (¶¶ 2, 8–15)
Held
- The first limb covers illegal or unauthorised construction by the councillor, spouse or dependent. The councillor’s knowledge, participation or assistance is not an additional condition; the provision’s constitutional validity was not challenged. (¶¶ 8–9, 11)
- The separate limbs address responsibility or assistance in unlawful construction and obstruction of lawful demolition. Their requirements cannot be imported into the first limb concerning construction by the councillor’s immediate family. (¶ 10–11)
- Disqualification is independent of criminal liability. Neither a preceding criminal prosecution or conviction nor the possibility of penal consequences prevents operation of Section 44(1)(e). (¶ 15)
- Temporary unlawful structures also fall within the provision. The claimed deemed permission concerned other construction, and no permission for the temporary structures was asserted. The Collector’s findings justified refusing interference. (¶¶ 13–14, 16–17)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. Councillor’s disqualification left undisturbed.