Summary
A Zilla Parishad member's son, registered as a contractor weeks after his father's election, won his only contract: a road repair sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad and funded through it, though tendered and paid by the Gram Panchayat. The Divisional Commissioner disqualified the member under Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, deciding on his written statement after repeated adjournments, and the High Court upheld the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: the provision is deliberately expansive and covers work done by order of the Zilla Parishad even if executed by a Gram Panchayat, the circumstances raised a strong inference of the member's interest in his son's business which a ration card did not dispel, and there is no birthright to adjournments where the Commissioner must decide within ninety days.
Issues
- Whether a Zilla Parishad councillor incurs disqualification under Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 where his son obtains a Gram Panchayat contract for work sanctioned and funded by the Zilla Parishad.
- Whether the councillor can be said to have an 'interest' in his son's contract when he claims the son is financially independent and lives separately.
- Whether deciding the disqualification on the councillor's written statement, after multiple adjournments, violated natural justice.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(1)(i), Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961Disqualifies a councillor with any direct or indirect share or interest in work done by order of the Zilla Parishad or in any contract with, by or on behalf of it; the expansive wording covers all financial connections with Zilla Parishad work and must not be read narrowly. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16, 19, 21)
- Sections 40(2) and 125, Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961The Commissioner must decide a disqualification question within ninety days after reasonable opportunity of hearing; the Zilla Parishad gave administrative sanction to the work under Section 125 and issued the work order to the Gram Panchayat. (¶¶ 2, 4, 21, 23)
Held
- The Act entrusts Zilla Parishads with major financial responsibilities and Section 16(1)(i) is worded expansively to capture every eventuality in which a councillor has a financial connection with Zilla Parishad work, in order to discourage financial patronage; disqualification provisions are not to be read restrictively, as Gulam Yasin Khan and Zelia M. Xavier Fernandes both show despite their different facts. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The Zilla Parishad issued the work order to the Gram Panchayat, sanctioned the project and channelled the State funds, so the work was done by order of the Zilla Parishad and fell within Section 16(1)(i) even though the Gram Panchayat tendered and paid for it. (¶ 21)
- The son was registered as a contractor only after his father's election, had no other contract, and the only one he obtained was funded through the father's Zilla Parishad; these facts heighten suspicion of the father's interest, and a ration card showing the son living with his grandmother is neither here nor there. A father bears responsibility to ensure his son does not take a contract sanctioned by the body he sits on. (¶¶ 20, 22)
- There is no birthright to adjournments, particularly where the Commissioner must decide within ninety days under Section 40(2); after multiple adjournments at the appellant's request the Commissioner rightly treated his written statement as his defence. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; disqualification of the appellant from membership of the Zilla Parishad, Dhule under Section 16(1)(i) upheld, to take effect from the date of the judgment; parties to bear their own costs.