Supreme Court upholds removal of Gujarat sarpanch over Rs 13.52 lakh contracts awarded to husband’s firm
The Supreme Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by a woman challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that had upheld removal of a sarpanch under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.
The Supreme Court said there was nothing on record to establish any separation between the petitioner and her husband that could negate the conflict of interest concerns. (Image generated using AI) Supreme Court news: The Supreme Court has upheld the removal of a Gujarat village sarpanch accused of misusing her office to award panchayat contracts worth Rs 13.52 lakh to a firm in which her husband was a partner, ruling that a “too restrictive” interpretation of the disqualification clause would frustrate the very object for which it is incorporated.
A bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a special leave petition filed by one Rekhaben Abhalbhai Bambhaniya challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that had affirmed her removal as sarpanch under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.
“In such circumstances, too restrictive an interpretation to the disqualification clause would frustrate the very object for which it is incorporated in the statute…we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the finding returned by the authorities that the petitioner misused her position as Sarpanch in awarding contracts to her own family,” the bench said on May 18, dismissing the plea.
Justices Manoj Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi of the Supreme Court said that principles of natural justice cannot be invoked mechanically. (Image enhanced using AI)
Allegations of misuse of office
The case stemmed from allegations that the petitioner, while serving as a sarpanch of a gram panchayat in Gujarat, had abused her position by facilitating contracts in favour of a firm linked to her husband.
She was issued a show-cause notice containing six charges related to misuse of authority.
Two of those charges specifically concerned the award of panchayat contracts to a firm in which her husband was a partner.
In her defence, the petitioner contended that the contracts had been awarded after inviting public tenders and only because the concerned firm had emerged as the lowest bidder.
However, the district development officer rejected the explanation and concluded that the petitioner had enabled her husband to derive a financial benefit of Rs 13,52,350 through misuse of her official position.
The authority recorded that she had taken “frivolous decisions” and misused the office of sarpanch to secure personal gain for a family member.
Sarpanch to husband's firm: How the Rs 13.52 lakh contract chain was established
- Public tenders were invited
- Firm won as lowest bidder
- No express prohibition in law
- Report not supplied — natural justice violated
- Process was transparent
- Public tender no shield against conflict of interest
- No separation between sarpanch and husband shown
- S.30(1)(g) covers indirect interest in contracts
- Facts never denied — no prejudice from report
- Family benefit admitted; removal upheld
Challenge before authorities, high court fails
Following the removal order, the petitioner approached the additional development commissioner in appeal, but the challenge was dismissed.
She then moved the Gujarat High Court through a writ petition. Both the single judge and later the division bench refused to interfere with the findings against her.
The petitioner submitted before the Supreme Court that the proceedings suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice because the district development officer had relied upon a report of the taluka development officer without supplying a copy of that report to her.
The court noted, however, that the high court had already rejected this contention on the ground that the petitioner had never denied awarding contractual benefits to her husband’s firm.
The high court had held that mere non-supply of additional material would not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.
The top court agreed with that reasoning, observing that principles of natural justice cannot be invoked mechanically where admitted facts themselves justify the ultimate conclusion.
Court examines disqualification provision
- The petitioner also argued that neither the Gujarat Panchayats Act nor the rules framed under it expressly prohibited a sarpanch from awarding a contract to a family member, particularly when the process involved public tendering.
- In response, the state relied on Section 30(1)(g) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, which disqualifies a person from continuing as a member of a panchayat if the person directly or indirectly has any share or interest in any work or contract of the panchayat.
- The Supreme Court referred extensively to its earlier judgment in Virendrasing vs Additional Commissioner (2023), where a member of a zila parishad had been disqualified after participating in a decision awarding a contract to his son.
- Quoting from that decision, the Supreme Court noted that disqualification provisions are intentionally framed in broad language to prevent “financial patronage” and ensure purity in public administration.
- The earlier ruling had cautioned against adopting an “overly restrictive or narrow” interpretation of such provisions because their objective is to maintain integrity in local self-government institutions.
Public tender process no shield
- Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on the public tender process, the Supreme Court said there was nothing on record to establish any separation between the petitioner and her husband that could negate the conflict of interest concerns.
- The court said that even though the matter before it was technically related to misuse of office rather than formal disqualification proceedings, the admitted facts sufficiently established that the petitioner had improperly used her position as sarpanch to benefit her own family.
- Holding that no case for interference was made out, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition and disposed of all pending applications.
Share
