2022 INSC 0009
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2022
(arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2021)
SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDE   ..…APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK & ORS.       …..RESPONDENT(S)
 
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2022
(arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 451 OF 2021)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.

2
2. The   core   issue   in   these   appeals   is:   whether   an   appeal   could
be   filed   before   the   Divisional   Commissioner   against   an   order
passed   by   the   Collector   under   Section   14B(1)   of   the   Maharashtra
Village   Panchayats   Act,   1959 1
,   declining   to   disqualify   a
Sarpanch/Member   of   the   Panchayat   for   allegedly   having   failed   to
lodge   an   account   of   election   expenses   within   the   time   and   in   the
manner   prescribed   by   the   State   Election   Commission,   without
offering any good reason or justification for such failure?
3. Briefly   stated,   the   appellants   contested   elections   held   in
September,   2018   for   electing   a   new   Panchayat.     The   appellant   in
appeal   arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   No.   295/2021   had   been   directly
elected as a Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Kusumba, Taluka and
District   Dhule   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   from   public,   whereas,
the   appellant   in   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   No.   451/2021   was
elected as a member of the same Village Panchayat.  
4. Respondent   No.   2   filed   two   Dispute   Applications   being   Nos.
10/2019 and 11/2019 in the office of respondent No. 5 – Collector,
seeking   declaration   under   Section   14B(1)   ­   that   the   appellants
1   for short, “the 1959 Act”

3
herein   stood   disqualified   for   not   submitting   the   election   expenses
within   the   stipulated   time.     The   Collector,   after   considering   the
relevant material and the submissions of the rival parties, rejected
both   the   Dispute   Applications   by   separate   judgment   and   order
dated 5.2.2019 being devoid of merits.
5. The  respondent  No. 2  thereafter  carried the matter  in  appeal
before   the   Divisional   Commissioner,   Nasik   Region,   Nasik 2
,
questioning   the   correctness   of   the   rejection   of   his   Dispute
Applications   by   the   Collector.     The   Divisional   Commissioner
allowed   both   the   appeals   by   separate   judgment   and   order   dated
15.7.2019 and thereby declaring the appellants as disqualified and
ineligible to remain as Gram Panchayat Sarpanch/Member.  
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petitions before the
High  Court  of Judicature  at Bombay   Bench  at  Aurangabad 3
  being
Writ Petition Nos. 9244/2019 and 9245/2019.  
7. As   common   question   had   arisen   for   consideration,   the   High
Court   vide   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   dated
2   for short, “the Divisional Commissioner”
3   for short, “the High Court”

4
17.12.2020,   dismissed   both   the   writ   petitions   and   affirmed   the
order   of   disqualification   passed   by   the   Divisional   Commissioner
against the appellants herein.
8. The   principal   challenge  before   the   High   Court  was   about   the
jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeals
as   filed   by   the   respondent   No.   2.     For,   the   1959   Act   does   not
provide   for   an   appeal   against   the   order   passed   by   the   Collector
under  Section   14B(1)  in   rejecting   the  application   for   declaring   the
incumbent  member  as disqualified.   Further, the remedy  provided
for consequent to the decision of the Collector under Section 14B(1)
before   the   Divisional   Commissioner,   is   limited   to   removing   the
disqualification or reducing the period of any such disqualification.
However,   in   a   case   where   the   Collector   rejects   the   application   for
disqualification of Sarpanch/Member, no further remedy of appeal
is   provided   for   in   the   1959   Act.     The   High   Court   negatived   this
contention   and   opined   that   it   was   open   to   the   aggrieved
applicant(s)   to   assail   such   decision   of   the   Collector,   by   way   of   an
appeal   under   Section   14B(2)   before   the   Divisional   Commissioner.
To   buttress   this   conclusion,   the   High   Court   drew   analogy   from

5
remedy   of   appeal   against   order   of   Collector   under   Section   16(2)
before   the   Divisional   Commissioner   under   Section   16(2)   and   then
adverted   to   the   decision   in   Suchita   Murlidhar   Kewati
(Sarpanch)   &  Ors.   vs.   State   of  Maharashtra   &   Ors. 4
   Further,
having   rejected   the   objection   regarding   jurisdiction   of   the
Divisional Commissioner to entertain the appeal(s), the High Court
proceeded to affirm the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner
of   reversing   the   decision   of   the   Collector,   on   merits.     Accordingly,
the writ petitions filed by the appellants came to be dismissed.
9. We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel
for   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Nishant   R.   Katneshwarkar,   learned
counsel   for   the   respondent   No.   2.     They   have,   more   or   less,
reiterated the stand taken before the High Court by the respective
parties. 
10. The   provision,   for   disqualifying,   to   be   a   member   of   a
Panchayat and to continue as such, is imbued in Section 14 5
 of the
4   2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 414
5   Disqualifications.   –   (1)   No   person   shall   be   a   member   of   a   Panchayat
continue as such, who –
(a) to  (j­3) xxx xxx xxx

6
1959  Act.     One   of   the   stipulations  inserted   by   way   of   amendment
in 2010 with effect from 6.5.2010 is clause (j­4) in Section 14(1).  It
predicates   that   a   person,   if   disqualified   by   the   State   Election
Commission under Section 14B of the Act, shall not be a member
of   a   Panchayat   or   continue   as   such.     Section   14B 6
  was   also
inserted by the same amendment Act in 2010.  It enables the State
Election   Commission   to   declare   a   person   (member   of   the
Panchayat) as disqualified for being a member of the Panchayat or
for   contesting   an   election   for   being   a   member   for   a   period   of   five
years from the date of the order so passed, if he has failed to lodge
an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner
(j­4)     has   been   disqualified   by   the   State   Election   Commission   under
section 14B; or
…..
6   14B.   Disqualification   by   State   Election   Commission.   –   (1)   If   the   State
Election Commission is satisfied that a person, ­
(a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time
and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and
(b) has no good reason or justification for such failure,
the   State   Election   Commission   may,   by   an   order   published   in   the
Official   Gazette ,   declare   him   to   be   disqualified   and   such   person   shall   be
disqualified for being a member of   panchayat   or for contesting an election for
being a member for a period of five years from the date of this order.
(2)         The   State   Election   Commission   may,   for   reasons   to   be   recorded,
remove any disqualification under sub­section (1) or reduce the period of such
disqualification.

7
required by the State Election Commission and has no good reason
or   justification   for   such   failure.     Sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   14B
enables   the   State   Election   Commission   to   remove   such
disqualification or reduce the period thereof.  
11. Be it noted that the State Election Commission in exercise of
its enabling powers, vide Article 243­K of the Constitution of India
including   Section   10A(2) 7
  of   the   1959   Act,   issued   an   order   dated
19.11.2010 8
  to   delegate   its   powers,   such   as   under   Section   14B   of
7   10A. State Election Commission .­ 
…..
(2) The   State   Election   Commissioner   may,   by   order,   delegate
any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Commission
or   any   officer   of   the   State   Government   not   below   the   rank   of
Tahsildar.
8     …
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
New Administrative Building, Opp. Ministry, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 400 032
Date: 19.11.2010
             O R D E R
Regarding conferring of powers to declare disqualification of the candidates
contesting   the   elections   of   Zilla   Parishad,   Panchayat   Samiti   and   Village
Panchayats   if   they   do   not   submit   the   expenditure   account   in   the   prescribed
manner.
No. SEC/ZPPS/2010/L.No.9/KA­7: Under the powers conferred vide Article
No.   243­K   of   the   Indian   Constitution,   as   well   Section   9A(2)   of   the   Maharashtra
Zilla   Parishads   and   Panchayat   Samitis   Act,   1961   and   Section   10A(2)   of   the
Bombay   Village   Panchayat   Act,   1958   and   in   exercise   of   other   powers,   the   State
Election Commissioner, Maharashtra pass the following order: ­

8
the 1959 Act to the officers of the State Government.   Clause B of
the   stated   order   stipulates   that   powers   conferred   upon   the   State
Election   Commission   under   Section   14B(1)   shall   vest   in   the
concerned   Collector   of   the   District   and   powers   conferred   on   it
under   Section   14B(2)   shall   vest   with   the   concerned   Divisional
Commissioner.
12. By   virtue   of   this   order,   the   State   Election   Commission   has
had   authorised   the   Collector   to   exercise   its   powers   under   Section
14B(1);   whereas   powers   under   Section   14B(2)   by   the   Divisional
Commissioner.     It   follows   that   the   concerned   State   Government
officials are ordained to exercise the assigned power in silos.    Ergo ,
the   power   of   State   Election   Commission   under   Section   14B(1)   to
declare that the Sarpanch/Member of a Panchayat as disqualified,
(A) The   powers   conferred   under   the   provisions   of   Section   15(B)(1)   and
62(A)   of   the   Maharashtra   Zilla   Parishads   and   Panchayat   Samitis   Act,
1961   are   hereby   vested   in   concerned   Collector.     Similarly   the   powers
conferred   under   Section   15(B)(2)   and   62(B)(1)   are   hereby   vested   in
concerned Divisional Commissioners.
(B) The powers conferred under the provisions of Section 14(B)(1) of
the   Bombay   Village   Panchayats   Act,   1958   are   hereby   vested   in
concerned Collector.  Similarly the powers conferred under Section
14(B)(2) are hereby vested in concerned Divisional Commissioners.
By the order of Election Commissioner
…
(emphasis supplied)

9
is   to   be   exercised   by   the   Collector   and   not   the   Divisional
Commissioner.     Similarly,   the   Divisional   Commissioner   can
exercise   power   only   in   respect   of   matters   specified   in   Section
14B(2) ­ to remove the disqualification incurred under sub­Section
(1) or reduce the period of such disqualification.  In either case, the
power   to   decide   concerned   issues   is   that   of   the   State   Election
Commission,   which   thenceforth   could   be   exercised   by   its
concerned   delegatee   in   respect   of   matters   specified   in   the   stated
order.  
13. Notably,   no   appeal   is   provided   against   the   order   of   Collector
(or   of   State   Election   Commission)   refusing   to   disqualify   the
Sarpanch/Member   under   Section   14B(1).     Similarly,   no   appeal   is
provided even against the order of the Divisional Commissioner (or
of   State   Election   Commission)   under   Section   14B(2).     A   limited
window   against   the   order   under   Section   14B(1)   passed   by   the
Collector   (or   State   Election   Commission   itself)   declaring   the
Sarpanch/Member   of   a   Panchayat   as   disqualified,   is   kept   open
before   the   Divisional   Commissioner   (or   the   State   Election
Commissioner,   if   the   order   under   Section   14B(1)   is   or   were   to   be

10
passed   by   the   State   Election   Commission   itself)   ­   to   remove   such
disqualification or to reduce the period thereof in deserving cases.
To   put   it   tersely,   for   the   nature   of   power   exercised   by   the   State
Election   Commission   under   Section   14B,   no   remedy   of   appeal   is
envisioned by the statute.  
14. The power of the State Election Commission, bestowed under
sub­Section   (1)   or   (2)   of   Section   14B,   though   concerns   subject   of
disqualification   of   a   person,   it   operates   in   two   different   silos.     In
that,   the   power   under   Section   14B(2)   gets   triggered   only   after   an
order   of   disqualification   is   passed   under   Section   14B(1).     The
former is not activated at all in a case where the application or the
proceedings   to   declare   the   Sarpanch/Member   as   disqualified,   is
rejected or dropped.  Taking any other view would inevitably result
in   a   situation   where   the   power   exercised   by   the   State   Election
Commission under Section 14B(1) could be appealed against before
itself (its delegatee).  That cannot be countenanced. For, an appeal
cannot   lie  before the   same  Authority/functionary  who   had  passed
the order of rejection of prayer to declare the member concerned as
disqualified.     Sans   an   express   statutory   intent   to   provide   appeal

11
against   the   order   rejecting   application   to   declare   a   person
disqualified, it must follow that upon passing such order the power
under   Section   14B   is   fully   exhausted   by   the   State   Election
Commission (or its delegatee, as the case may be).
15. Indubitably,   an   authority   rejecting   the   proposal   regarding
disqualification,   cannot   sit   “in   appeal”   over   its   own   order   of
rejection.     Notably,   there   is   no   express   power   bestowed   upon   the
State   Election   Commission   or   its   delegatee   to   review   its   own
decision   passed  under   Section   14B(1)   or   14B(2)   of   the   Act,   as   the
case may be.  The argument of the respondent No. 2 that the power
bestowed   on   the   Divisional   Commissioner   under   Section   14B(2)
posits   power   to   impose   disqualification   by   virtue   of   Section   21   of
the   General   Clauses   Act,   1897,   does   not   commend   to   us   and   the
same needs to be merely stated to be rejected.   Similarly, we reject
the   argument   of   the   respondent   No.   2   that   it   is   a   case   of   Casus
Omissus .   Whereas,  the legislative intent  and  the  setting  in  which
the relevant provisions are couched leaves no manner of doubt that
such   power   had   not   been   given   to   the   delegatee   (Divisional

12
Commissioner),   as   it   does   not   inhere   in   the   State   Election
Commission itself.
16. The High Court, however, answered the question by referring
to the logic under Section 16(2) 9
  of the Act.   We hasten to observe
that the High Court posed a wrong question to itself in paragraph 2
of   the   impugned   judgment   (whether   the   Divisional   Commissioner
had   jurisdiction   to   entertain   an   appeal   under   “Section   16(2)”
against   an   order   of   Collector   under   Section   14B(1)   refusing   to
9   16.     Disability   from   continuing   as   member.   –   (1)     If   any   member   of   a
Panchayat
(a)  who is elected or appointed as such, was subject to any of the
disqualification   mentioned   in   Section   14   at   the   time   of   his   election   or
appointment, or
(b)       during   the   term   for   which  he  has   been   elected   or   appointed
incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 14, he shall be
disabled   from   continuing   to   be   a   member,   and   his   office   shall   become
vacant.
(2) If any question whether a vacancy has occurred under this Section is
raised   by   the   Collector   suo   motu   or   on   an   application   made   to   him   by   any
person in that behalf, the Collector shall decide the question as far as possible
within   sixty   days   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   such   application.     Until   the
Collector   decides   the   question,   the   member   shall   not   be   disabled   under   sub­
section   (1)   from   continuing   to   be   a   member.     Any   person   aggrieved   by   the
decision   of   the   Collector   may,   within   a   period   of   fifteen   days   from   the
date   of   such   decision,   appeal   to   the   State   Government,   and   the   orders
passed by the State Government in such appeal shall be final :
Provided   that   no   order   shall   be   passed   under   this   sub­section   by   the
Collector against any member without giving him a reasonable opportunity of
being heard.
(emphasis supplied)

13
disqualify a Sarpanch/Member), and as a result of which arrived at
the wrong conclusion.  
17. Concededly, Section 16 is a provision which speaks about the
disability   from   continuing   as   the   member   of   a   Panchayat,
consequent   to   incurring   disqualification   or   has   been   so   declared
under   Section   14   of   the   Act.     Once   a   Sarpanch/Member   is
disqualified under Section 14B by virtue of an order under Section
14B(1),   it   would   give   rise   to   two   situations   –   the   first   is   that   the
person   concerned   can   invoke   option   under   Section   14B(2)   for
removal of his disqualification or for reduction of the period of such
disqualification.     The   second   is   the   obligation   fastened   upon   the
Collector   to   decide   the   issue   as   to   whether   vacancy   has   occurred
on   account   of   such   disqualification.     That   question   is   required   to
be   answered   by   the   Collector   in   the   first   instance,   in   terms   of
Section   16(2)   and   to   take   follow­up   steps   thereafter   in   filling   up
such   vacancy.     The   decision   of   the   Collector   on   such   question,
referable   to   sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   16,   however,   has   explicitly
been made appealable before the State Government or the delegate
of   the   State   Government.     That   is,   completely,   a   different   regime
albeit   a   consequence   of   process   referred   to   in   Section   14B(1)   ­   to

14
declare   a   Sarpanch   or   a   member   as   having   incurred
disqualification.     This   question   decided   by   the   Collector,   is
essentially   in   his   capacity   as   a   delegatee   of   the   State   Election
Commission   and,   de   jure,   deemed   to   have   been   decided   by   the
State  Election   Commission   itself.   Be  that  as   it  may,   the  question
decided   by   the   Collector   under   Section   16   is,   in   one   sense,   a
ministerial   act   bestowed   upon   him   to   ascertain   whether   vacancy
had arisen as a consequence of the disqualification order and to fill
up such vacancy.
18. A priori , if the State Election Commission or its delegatee were
to   reject   or   drop   the   proceedings   against   the   concerned   person   or
member   initiated   under   Section   14B(1),   as   being   devoid   of   merits
or  for  any  other  reason, the complainant does not  have remedy  of
appeal against such decision.   Such an order becomes final and is
not   appealable   at   all.     Indeed,   it   can   be   assailed   before   the
constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. The   High   Court   has   adverted   to   the   decision   in   Suchita
Murlidhar Kewati 10
.   Indeed, the exposition in that decision is in
the   context   of   an   application   filed   under   Section   14B   for   a
10  supra at Footnote No. 4

15
declaration that the elected member had incurred disqualification.
However, the observations in paragraph 9 of the reported decision
have   been   completely   misconstrued   and   misapplied   to   the   fact
situation of the present case.
20. Our attention has also been drawn to yet another decision of
the same Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 12276/2021
decided   on   3.12.2021 11
.     In   the   said   judgment,   the   legal   position
has   been   correctly   expounded   that   the   processes   under   Section
14B(1) and Section 16 are completely different, though concern the
matter  of disqualification  and vacancy  arising  therefrom.   In case,
the   Collector   rejects   the   complaint   and   drops   the   proceedings   in
favour   of   concerned   Sarpanch/Member,   there   would   be   no
question   of   accrual   of   any   vacancy.     In   contradistinction,   if   the
Collector declares the member as having incurred disqualification,
the   follow­up   issue   required   to   be   considered   by   the   Collector
under   Section   16   then   is   to   ascertain   if   any   vacancy   had   arisen
because of such disqualification.  The two are different processes.
11   Shri   Gulabrao   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   &   Ors.   ­   Writ   Petition   No.
12276/2021 decided on 3.12.2021

16
21. Taking  any  view of the matter, the opinion of the High Court
in the impugned judgment cannot be countenanced.   We conclude
that no remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State
Election Commission or its delegatee – the Collector, under Section
14B(1),   rejecting   the   complaint   or   to   drop   the   proceedings   for
declaration   of   a   Sarpanch/Member   having   incurred
disqualification.     That   order   becomes   final   and   if   passed   by   the
Collector   as   the   delegatee,   is   deemed   to   have   been   passed   by   the
State   Election   Commission   itself.     Even   the   State   Election
Commission cannot step in thereafter in any manner much less in
the guise of reconsideration or review of such order.  It must follow
that   the   Divisional   Commissioner   would   have   no   jurisdiction   ( ab
initio )   to entertain assail to such an order of the Collector. 
22. We   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   the   High   Court   not   only
negatived   the   objection   regarding   jurisdiction   of   the   Divisional
Commissioner   to   entertain   the   stated   appeals,   but   also   affirmed
the   decision   on   merits   in   reversing   the   order(s)   of   Collector
rejecting   the   Dispute   Applications   of   the   respondent   No.   2.     The
fact   that   the   High   Court   ventured   into   the   terrain   of   dealing   with

17
merits   of   the   case,   does   not   require   us   to   examine   that   question.
For,   once   it   is   held   that   the   Divisional   Commissioner   had   no
jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   appeal   against   the   order   of   the
Collector under Section 14B(1) rejecting the complaint filed by the
respondent No. 2, no other  issue needed examination  by  the High
Court   at   his   instance.     Resultantly,   we   decline   to   go   into   the
correctness   of   the   decision   of   the   Collector   on   merits   in   rejecting
the   Dispute   Applications   filed   by   respondent   No.   2,   for   a
declaration   that   the   appellants   had   incurred   disqualification.     We
also do not wish to dilate on the plea urged by the respondent No.
2   that   the   appellants   had   disentitled   themselves   for   indulgence   of
this Court owing to their conduct, as we have held that the stated
order(s)   of   the   Divisional   Commissioner   are   without   jurisdiction
and  non­est  in law.
23. Accordingly,   these   appeals   succeed.     The   impugned   common
judgment   and  order  is  set  aside.    As a  result,  the  separate  orders
passed   by   the   Divisional   Commissioner   dated   15.7.2019   in   the
respective appeals are also set aside and instead the writ petitions
filed   by   the   appellants   are   allowed,   thereby   restoring   the   separate

18
orders passed by the Collector dated 5.2.2019, rejecting the stated
Dispute Application(s) filed by the respondent No. 2.  There shall be
no order as to costs.
..……………………………J.
       (A.M. Khanwilkar)
………………………………J.
      (C.T. Ravikumar)
New Delhi;
January 04, 2022.