The Bombay High Court has clarified that mere registration of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is insufficient grounds for disqualifying a member under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. While disposing of a writ petition, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within six weeks, emphasizing that disqualification cannot be sustained without trial progress or charge sheet filing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jasaram Aasaram Tumbhare, a member of a village panchayat, was disqualified by the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (MVPA). The disqualification was based on the registration of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against him. The petitioner challenged the disqualification order dated 30.09.2025 before the State Government, seeking a stay on its operation, but the Hon’ble Minister refused to entertain the prayer.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was disqualified on 30.09.2025 under Section 39 MVPA due to an offence registered under Section 7 PC Act
- The petitioner filed a substantive appeal before the State Government along with an application for stay of the disqualification order
- The Hon’ble Minister rejected the stay application
- No charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner for three years since the registration of the offence
- No progress was made in the trial during this period
Procedural History
- 30.09.2025: Disqualification order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
- Post-30.09.2025: Petitioner filed appeal and stay application before State Government
- Date not specified: Hon’ble Minister refused to grant stay
- 20.04.2026: Interim relief granted by Bombay High Court
- 06.04.2026: Respondent No. 1 rejected petitioner’s prayer for stay of disqualification order
- June 2026: Present writ petition (WP No. 4157 of 2026) filed before Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 06.04.2026 rejecting the stay application
- Stay of the disqualification order dated 30.09.2025 pending disposal of the appeal before the State Government
- Direction to the State Government to decide the appeal within a reasonable time
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether mere registration of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sufficient to disqualify a member under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, without any progress in the trial or filing of a charge sheet.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Suryawanshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Priti Manoj Bundile v. Office of Minister For Rural Development and Others (decided on 24.03.2026). He argued that:
- Mere registration of an offence cannot justify disqualification under Section 39(1)(i) MVPA
- The petitioner had not been charge-sheeted for three years, and there was no progress in the trial
- The disqualification order was unsustainable in law in the absence of trial progress
For the Respondent/State
The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for the State did not present substantive counter-arguments but relied on the procedural propriety of the disqualification order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner’s contention merited consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Priti Manoj Bundile. The Court noted:
"No doubt that petitioner's contention needs consideration in light of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Priti Manoj Bundile (supra)."
However, the Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the disqualification order, as the substantive appeal was pending before the State Government. The Court emphasized the need for the Appellate Authority to consider all contentions and record findings in accordance with the law.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The State Government (Respondent No. 1) was requested to decide the pending appeal within six weeks from the date of the judgment (30.06.2026)
- The interim relief granted by the Court vide order dated 20.04.2026 was to remain in force until the disposal of the appeal
- The Court did not set aside the disqualification order but left the matter for the Appellate Authority to decide on merits
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mere Registration of Offence Is Insufficient for Disqualification
- Section 39(1)(i) MVPA cannot be invoked solely based on the registration of an offence under the PC Act
- Disqualification requires progress in trial or at least the filing of a charge sheet
- Practitioners should argue that automatic disqualification violates principles of natural justice and presumption of innocence
Appellate Authority Must Consider Supreme Court Precedents
- The State Government, while deciding appeals under MVPA, must apply the principles laid down in Priti Manoj Bundile
- Failure to consider trial progress or charge sheet status may render the disqualification order unsustainable in law
- Appellate authorities should provide written reasons for rejecting stay applications, especially when trial progress is absent
Interim Relief as a Safeguard
- Courts may grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm pending appeal, as seen in this case
- Practitioners should highlight delay in trial and lack of charge sheet to strengthen arguments for interim protection
- The six-week timeline set by the Court underscores the need for expeditious disposal of appeals under MVPA
