LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/shobhabai-narayan-shinde-vs-the-divisional-commissioner-nashik-division-nashik-ors-20220104/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Shobhabai Narayan Shinde vs The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 January 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2022
Result
Allowed
Bench
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar
Citation
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1035 : 2022 INSC 9
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1035 : 2022 INSC 9
Headnote

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – ss.14B(1) and 14B(2) – Whether an appeal could be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector u/s.14B(1), declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for allegedly having failed to lodge an account of election expenses within time and in the manner prescribed by State Election Commission, without offering any good reason or justification for such failure – Held: No remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee - the Collector, u/s.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.

Appeal – An appeal cannot lie before the same Authority/functionary who had passed the order of rejection of prayer. Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD:1. The power under Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 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 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). [Para 14][1041-F-H; 1042-A]

Read the full headnote (3 more paragraphs)

2. 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. [Para 18][1043-F-G]

3. 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. [Para 21][1044-E-F]

Suchita Murlidhar Kewati (Sarpanch) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 414 and Shri Gulabrao vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 12276/2021 decided on 3.12.2021) – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 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, 19591, 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, t
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →