SSK/ 1 WP/8376.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8376 OF 2010 Shri Vilas Bapu Kamble ....Petitioner Versus The Additional Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the State. Mr. Damle with Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 24th August, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Damle, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 14(1)(g) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”) for disqualification. The petitioner was elected as member and then, Sarpanch of Village-Ajara, Tal.Ajara, District-Kolhapur. Respondent no.3 filed a complaint with respondent no.1 alleging that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. Respondent no.1 after hearing both the sides accepted the contentions of respondent no.3 and accordingly disqualified the petitioner under Section 14(1)(g) of the SSK/ 2 WP/8376.10 said Act. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before respondent no.4. However, same was dismissed, and therefore, the present petition. 3. The Grampanchayat-Ajara invited tenders for construction of Samaj Mandir by issuing tender notice dated 11th February, 2008. Son of the petitioner viz.Sachin Vilas Kamble submitted his tender on the same day i.e. 11th February, 2008 intimating his offer to construct the Samaj Mandir. The tender of the petitioner’s son was accepted by the Grampanchayat by passing a resolution on 19th February, 2008 and the construction of Samaj Mandir work given to him. 4. The petitioner is residing in a same house along with his son- Sachin. A reliance is placed in this regard on the the ration card which supports the above fact. In the ration card, the age of the petitioner’s son is shown as 19 years. However, there is no evidence on record as to when this ration card was issued. The resolution under which the tender work is given to the petitioner’s son was proposed by the petitioner himself in his capacity as Sarpanch of the Village. Things does not rest here. The record shows and the findings are also recorded by the lower authorities that the petitioner himself accepted some of the cheques towards payment of the contract work. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is enough material on record to show that the petitioner is at least indirectly interested in the work done by his son under the order of Grampanchayat-Ajara. SSK/ 3 WP/8376.10 5. Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Nisar Ahmad Ibrahim Khan Versus Deolali Cantonment Board & Ors. reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 562 and Gulam Yasin Khan versus Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar & anr. reported A.I.R.1966 SC 1339. In Nisar Ahmad Ibrahim Khan’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that the disqualification must be strictly established. In this case, the Apex Court equated disqualification with that of election. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in this case. However, in the present case on the basis of the evidence I am satisfied that the petitioner is rightly disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. So far as the judgment in Gulam Yasin Khan’s case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court held that the interest in the contract may be direct or indirect. A Distinction was made between sentimental, or friendly interest, and pecuniary or material interest. The Apex Court held that in order to attract disqualification, pecuniary or material or of similar nature of interest is required to be proved. In the present case, respondent no.1 on the basis of joint ration card and the fact that the petitioner accepted the cheques drawn by the Grampanchayat in the name of contractor viz. Sachin-son of the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. Respondent no.4 in an appeal, at the instance of the petitioner, recorded positive findings that the petitioner had indirect interest in the work alloted to Sachin-petitioner’s son. SSK/ 4 WP/8376.10 6. Mr. Borkar submitted that there is no finding recorded by the first authority about the petitioner’s interest in the contract work. This submission, in my view, is without merit inasmuch as, respondent no.4 on the basis of evidence on record concluded that the petitioner had interest in the contract work. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner is rightly held to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) of the said Act. I do not find any error so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr. Borkar seeks extension of ad-interim relief granted by this Court earlier. Mr. Damle opposes the extension of interim relief. However, in the interest of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to approach the higher court, interim order granted earlier is extended by a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted. (RANJIT MORE, J.)