# SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 6 S.C.R. 215
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.4056 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sampada-yogesh-waghdhare-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-33851
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and
Industrial Township Act, 1965:
ss. 44(1)(e) - Disqualification under - For unauthorized
construction by the spouse of the Municipal Councillor/President
of the Council - Held: Disqualifying a Councillor i.e. a
democratically elected representative is a serious matter and the
case against such person must be strictly proved - However, s.
44(1)(e) requires reasonable interpretation - If ingredients of the
provision are established it must be given full play - Illegal
temporary constructions/structures made by the Councillor, spouse
or dependent would fall within the mischief of s. 44(1)(e) resulting
in disqualification of the Councillor.
s. 44(1)(e) - Nature of - Held: Section 44(1)(e) creates an
independent liability - The provision is neither dependent on a
criminal action preceding it, nor is the Court to be influenced by
the fact that making an unauthorized construction will have penal
consequences.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Section 44(1)(e) of Maharashtra Municipal
Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 falls
in three parts. The first limb of Section 44(1)(e) declares inter
alia that if a Councillor has constructed or constructs by himself
[which would also include a construction by a lady Councillor], it
would invite the wrath of the provision and it suffices to disqualify
the Councillor. This is no doubt subject to construction being
illegal or unauthorized, that is, in violation of the provisions of
Maharashtra Municipal Council Act or Maharashtra Regional or
Town Planning Act or the rules or bye-laws made under the said
 [2019] 6 S.C.R. 215
215
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Act. Further, in order to attract the first limb, it is sufficient if the
spouse of the Councillor or the dependent carries out any illegal
or unauthorized construction as aforesaid. In short, if the
Councillor, his spouse or dependent carries out any illegal or
unauthorized construction as aforesaid, it suffices to incur
disqualification for the Councillor. The policy underlying Section
44(1)(e) is to ensure that the highest level of probity is maintained
by the Councillor and nearest members of the Councillor's family.
It does not require the Councillor knowing the fact
of the construction being made by her spouse or dependent.
[Paras 8 and 9][220-B-G]
1.2 The second limb of Section 44(1)(e) provides that if a
Councillor had directly or indirectly been responsible for or helped
in his capacity as such Councillor in carrying out such illegal or
unauthorized construction, the Councillor becomes amenable for
action under Section 44(1)(e). The second limb does not deal
with the construction by the Councillor, spouse or dependent.
But insofar as any such illegal or unauthorized construction is
carried out resulting in the Councillor being disqualified is
concerned, the direct or indirect involvement of the Councillor
or his help in the matter has to be established. It has to be
established that the Councillor has been directly or indirectly
responsible or helped in his capacity as such Councillor in carrying
out of illegal or unauthorized construction. [Para 10][220-G-H;
221-A-B]
1.3 The third limb of Section 44(1)(e) has the following effect:
If a Councillor by a written communication obstructed or tried to
obstruct any competent authority from discharge of his official
duty in demolishing any illegal or unauthorized construction, the
Councillor would incur disqualification under Section 44(1)(e).
The last limb would also be attracted if the Councillor has
physically obstructed or tried to obstruct any competent authority
from discharging its official duty in demolishing any illegal or
unauthorized construction. [Para 10][221-B-D]
1.4 Thus the Legislature has apparently distinguished
between illegal or unauthorized construction, illegal or
unauthorized structure being constructed by the Councillor's
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
217
spouse or by

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.4056 of 2019)
APRIL 22, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and
Industrial Township Act, 1965:
ss. 44(1)(e) - Disqualification under - For unauthorized
construction by the spouse of the Municipal Councillor/President
of the Council - Held: Disqualifying a Councillor i.e. a
democratically elected representative is a serious matter and the
case against such person must be strictly proved - However, s.
44(1)(e) requires reasonable interpretation - If ingredients of the
provision are established it must be given full play - Illegal
temporary constructions/structures made by the Councillor, spouse
or dependent would fall within the mischief of s. 44(1)(e) resulting
in disqualification of the Councillor.
s. 44(1)(e) - Nature of - Held: Section 44(1)(e) creates an
independent liability - The provision is neither dependent on a
criminal action preceding it, nor is the Court to be influenced by
the fact that making an unauthorized construction will have penal
consequences.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Section 44(1)(e) of Maharashtra Municipal
Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 falls
in three parts. The first limb of Section 44(1)(e) declares inter
alia that if a Councillor has constructed or constructs by himself
[which would also include a construction by a lady Councillor], it
would invite the wrath of the provision and it suffices to disqualify
the Councillor. This is no doubt subject to construction being
illegal or unauthorized, that is, in violation of the provisions of
Maharashtra Municipal Council Act or Maharashtra Regional or
Town Planning Act or the rules or bye-laws made under the said
 [2019] 6 S.C.R. 215
215
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Act. Further, in order to attract the first limb, it is sufficient if the
spouse of the Councillor or the dependent carries out any illegal
or unauthorized construction as aforesaid. In short, if the
Councillor, his spouse or dependent carries out any illegal or
unauthorized construction as aforesaid, it suffices to incur
disqualification for the Councillor. The policy underlying Section
44(1)(e) is to ensure that the highest level of probity is maintained
by the Councillor and nearest members of the Councillor's family.
It does not require the Councillor knowing the fact
of the construction being made by her spouse or dependent.
[Paras 8 and 9][220-B-G]
1.2 The second limb of Section 44(1)(e) provides that if a
Councillor had directly or indirectly been responsible for or helped
in his capacity as such Councillor in carrying out such illegal or
unauthorized construction, the Councillor becomes amenable for
action under Section 44(1)(e). The second limb does not deal
with the construction by the Councillor, spouse or dependent.
But insofar as any such illegal or unauthorized construction is
carried out resulting in the Councillor being disqualified is
concerned, the direct or indirect involvement of the Councillor
or his help in the matter has to be established. It has to be
established that the Councillor has been directly or indirectly
responsible or helped in his capacity as such Councillor in carrying
out of illegal or unauthorized construction. [Para 10][220-G-H;
221-A-B]
1.3 The third limb of Section 44(1)(e) has the following effect:
If a Councillor by a written communication obstructed or tried to
obstruct any competent authority from discharge of his official
duty in demolishing any illegal or unauthorized construction, the
Councillor would incur disqualification under Section 44(1)(e).
The last limb would also be attracted if the Councillor has
physically obstructed or tried to obstruct any competent authority
from discharging its official duty in demolishing any illegal or
unauthorized construction. [Para 10][221-B-D]
1.4 Thus the Legislature has apparently distinguished
between illegal or unauthorized construction, illegal or
unauthorized structure being constructed by the Councillor's
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
217
spouse or by dependents as it was the legislative intention that
the Councillor will not carry out any such construction and he
would also be in a position to prevent construction either by his
spouse or a person who is dependent on him. The fact that
embargo is against the construction by the dependent and not
any relative or person not dependent on him would also indicate
that illegal construction by the spouse or dependent stand on a
different footing from persons who may not be so closely related
to the Councillor. [Para 10][221-D-E]
1.5 The words "such illegal or unauthorized construction"
occurring in the second limb of Section 44(1)(e) could be said to
refer to the construction made by the Councillor, his spouse or
the dependent, and in such a case, the words "directly or indirectly
responsible for" and the words "or helped in his capacity as
Councillor", would have to be applied. Such an interpretation
would produce unreasonable results. When the Councillor
constructs by himself, the words "or has directly or indirectly
responsible for", "or helped in his capacity as such Councillor"
does not bear any meaning. The plain meaning of the first limb of
Section 44(1)(e) is that in the case of construction by the
Councillor himself, which is illegal, it would result in
disqualification being incurred. The requirement of the
Councillor being directly or indirectly being responsible for or
helping in carrying out such construction in the capacity of
Councillor in the case of the spouse or dependent also is not the
statutory requirement. Having regard to the close relationship
between the spouse and the Councillor on the one hand and the
dependent and the Councillor on the other hand, the words
"carrying out such illegal or unauthorized construction" has
reference to construction which violates the provisions of the
Town Planning Act, the MRTP Act or the Rules and the Bye-laws
framed under those provisions. [Para 11][221-F-H; 222-A-B]
1.6 It is true that disqualifying the Councillor, is a serious
matter. Councillors of local bodies, after the 73rd amendment to
the Constitution, are democratically elected representatives of
the people at the grass root level. It is also true that in the case
of an Election Petition, the case against the respondent must be
SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
strictly proved. However, Section 44(1)(e), which is ordained by
the Legislature, requires reasonable interpretation, and if the
ingredients are established, it must be given full play.
[Para 12][222-C-D]
1.7 If temporary constructions are made it would also fall
within the mischief of Section 44(1)(e). In other words, if
temporary construction or structure have been illegally made by
the Councillor, spouse or dependent, disqualification follows. In
fact, more than one temporary construction was actually made.
The order of the Collector would show that as per the report of
the Sub Divisional Officer, the constructions were carried out,
and out of which, 5 were temporary and which were no doubt
removed. [Paras 14 and 16][222-G; 223-F-G]
2. It is not correct that as unauthorized construction also
brings in its wake criminal action, action under Section 44(1)(e)
will not lie. Section 44(1)(e) creates an independent liability or
rather creates disqualification as provided thereunder. This is
de hors the criminal action. There is nothing brought to the notice
of the Court to conclude that action under Section 44(1)(e) must
be preceded by a criminal action and conviction thereunder.
Section 44(1)(e), as it stands, is neither dependent on a criminal
action preceding it nor is the court to be influenced by the fact
that making an unauthorized construction will have penal
consequences. [Para 15][222-H; 223-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4056
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4647 of 2018.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Kunal Cheema, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Amol
Chitale, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant who was elected as a Municipal Councillor was
later elected as President of the Council on 11.02.2015. On the ground
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
219
that the husband of the appellant had carried out unauthorized
constructions, the appellant came to be disqualified under Section 44(1)(e)
of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial
Township Act, 1965 (In short "Maharashtra Municipal Council Act").
Section 44(1)(e) reads as follows:
"[(e) has constructed or construct by himself, his spouse or his
dependent, any illegal or unauthorised structure violating the
provisions of this Act, or the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 or the rules or bye-laws framed under the said
Acts; or has directly or indirectly been responsible for, or helped
in his capacity as such Councillor in, carrying out such illegal or
unauthorized construction or has by written communication or
physically obstructed or tried to obstruct, any Competent Authority
from discharging its official duty in demolishing any illegal or
unauthorised structure:]"
3. The disqualification was done on the basis of application dated
26.09.2016 by the second respondent. Initially, the Collector by order
dated 04.05.2017 found the appellant disqualified. The appeal carried
by her was unsuccessful. She challenged the statutory orders in a writ
petition before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order
dismissed the petition.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, pointed out that husband of the appellant, who allegedly carried
out the unauthorized constructions, had deemed permission within the
meaning of Section 45(5) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act. It
is further contended that the Court may consider that carrying out illegal
activity attracts penal provision and it is a grave matter and the impugned
order could not be sustained. He further submitted that a perusal of
Section 44(1)(e) would show that the appellant cannot be held responsible
even if her spouse had put up illegal structures.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents essentially
contended that the court may proceed on the basis that the construction
which has been carried out on the basis of the so-called deemed provision
may not be sufficient to disqualify the appellant. However, they only
contended that admittedly the appellant carried out the construction of
temporary structure.
SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
7. Rebutting the contention of the respondents regarding her
husband having carried out temporary constructions, it is submitted by
appellant that the impugned orders did not bear out any specific
consideration of the same. The matter relates to disqualification which
requires greater care.
8. The first contention which we would address is that merely
proceeding on the basis that her husband put up the structures, it is not
sufficient to attract Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council
Act. We are afraid that the contention of the appellant in this regard
cannot be sustained. A perusal of Section 44(1)(e) would show that it
falls in three parts.
9. The first limb of Section 44(1)(e) declares inter alia that if a
Councillor has constructed or constructs by himself [which would also
include a construction by a lady Councillor], it would invite the wrath of
the provision and it suffices to disqualify the Councillor. This is no doubt
subject to construction being illegal or unauthorized, that is, in violation
of the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Council Act or Maharashtra
Regional or Town Planning Act (In short 'MRTP Act') or the rules or
bye-laws made under the said Act. Further, in order to attract the first
limb, it is sufficient if the spouse of the Councillor or the dependent
carries out any illegal or unauthorized construction as aforesaid. In short,
if the Councillor, his spouse or dependent carries out any illegal or
unauthorized construction as aforesaid, it suffices to incur disqualification
for the Councillor. We have to take Section 44(1)(e) as it is. The vires
of the said provision is not questioned. On a plain reading of the provision,
it is not relevant to consider whether the Councillor was in any manner
party to the construction which is made either by her spouse or dependent.
The policy underlying the provisions is to ensure that the highest level of
probity is maintained by the Councillor and nearest members of the
Councillor's family. It does not require the Councillor knowing the fact
of the construction being made by her spouse or dependent. We have to
take the law as it is and fulfil the intention of the Legislature.
10. The second limb of Section 44(1)(e) provides that if a Councillor
had directly or indirectly been responsible for or helped in his capacity
as such Councillor in carrying out such illegal or unauthorized construction,
the Councillor becomes amenable for action under Section 44(1)(e).
The second limb does not deal with the construction by the Councillor,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
spouse or dependent. But insofar as any such illegal or unauthorized
construction is carried out resulting in the Councillor being disqualified is
concerned, the direct or indirect involvement of the Councillor or his
help in the matter has to be established. It has to be established that the
Councillor has been directly or indirectly responsible or helped in his
capacity as such Councillor in carrying out of illegal or unauthorized
construction. The third limb of Section 44(1)(e) has the following effect:
If a Councillor by a written communication obstructed or tried
to obstruct any competent authority from discharge of his official
duty in demolishing any illegal or unauthorized construction, the
Councillor would incur disqualification under Section 44(1)(e). The
last limb would also be attracted if the Councillor has physically
obstructed or tried to obstruct any competent authority from
discharging its official duty in demolishing any illegal or
unauthorized construction. Thus, the Legislature has apparently
distinguished between illegal or unauthorized construction, illegal
or unauthorized structure being constructed by the Councillor's
spouse or by dependents as it was the legislative intention that the
Councillor will not carry out any such construction and he would
also be in a position to prevent construction either by his spouse
or a person who is dependent on him. The fact that embargo is
against the construction by the dependent and not any relative or
person not dependent on him would also indicate that illegal
construction by the spouse or dependent stand on a different footing
from persons who may not be so closely related to the Councillor.
11. The words "such illegal or unauthorized construction" occurring
in the second limb of Section 44(1)(e) could be said to refer to the
construction made by the Councillor, his spouse or the dependent, and in
such a case, the words "directly or indirectly responsible for" and the
words "or helped in his capacity as Councillor", would have to be applied.
Such an interpretation, in our view, would produce unreasonable results.
When the Councillor constructs by himself, the words "or has directly or
indirectly responsible for", "or helped in his capacity as such Councillor"
does not bear any meaning. The plain meaning of the first limb of Section
44(1)(e) is that in the case of construction by the Councillor himself,
which is illegal, it would result in disqualification being incurred. The
requirement of the Councillor being directly or indirectly being responsible
SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
for or helping in carrying out of such construction in the capacity of
Councillor in the case of the spouse or dependent also is not the statutory
requirement. Having regard to the close relationship between the spouse
and the Councillor on the one hand and the dependent and the Councillor
on the other hand, the words "carrying out such illegal or unauthorized
construction" has reference to construction which violates the provisions
of the Town Planning Act, the MRTP Act or the Rules and the Bye-laws
framed under those provisions. Having disposed of the said contention
of the appellant, we must proceed to consider the other contentions.
12. It is true that disqualifying the Councillor, is a serious matter.
Councillors of local bodies, after the 73rd amendment to the Constitution,
are democratically elected representatives of the people at the grass
root level. It is undoubtedly also true that in the case of an Election
Petition, the case against the respondent must be strictly proved.
However, Section 44(1)(e), which is ordained by the Legislature, requires
reasonable interpretation, and if the ingredients are established, it must
be given full play.
13. As already noted, the construction made by the husband of
the appellant falls into two parts. Construction has been made on the
basis of deemed permission. In regard to deemed permission, the
contention raised by the respondents apparently based on a regulation
that before commencing construction, even if there is deemed permission,
a notice was to be served on the local body, may not apply, as it is not in
dispute that the said regulation itself is not applicable to the case at hand.
This necessarily means that the case built up based on deemed permission
not being effective, and therefore, there was unauthorized construction,
cannot be pressed against the appellant and we also need not deal with
the same.
14. The only question we are called upon to decide is the effect of
temporary construction which had been made. There is no dispute that
if temporary constructions are made it would also fall within the mischief
of Section 44(1)(e). In other words, if temporary construction or structure
have been illegally made by the Councillor, spouse or dependent,
disqualification follows.
15. We do not find merit in the contention of the appellant that as
unauthorized construction also brings in its wake criminal action, action
under Section 44(1)(e) will not lie. Section 44(1)(e) creates an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
independent liability or rather creates disqualification as provided
thereunder. This is de hors the criminal action. There is nothing brought
to our notice to conclude that action under Section 44(1)(e) must be
preceded by a criminal action and conviction thereunder. Equally, the
argument that if disqualification is incurred under Section 44(1)(e) since
unauthorized construction can be visited under law creating criminal
liability, action under Section 44(1)(e) will not lie. We are of the view
that this argument has no merit and Section 44(1)(e), as it stands, is
neither dependent on a criminal action preceding it nor is the court to be
influenced by the fact that making an unauthorized construction will have
penal consequences.
16. The only contention which remains is regarding the temporary
structures. Our attention was drawn to the application produced at page
55 of the SLP paper book. It is pointed that out that construction for
which permission was sought and in respect of which the deemed
permission has been claimed, were not in relation to temporary
construction. In particular, our attention was drawn to Column 26 which
seeks details about the materials to be used in the construction. As
against the column roof, it is stated 'RCC: The floors are shown as
'ceramic tiles', against column walls, it is said 'stone masonary' and
against Columns it is written 'RCC'. Our attention was invited by
respondents to the following paragraph in the order passed by the Collector
which appear to set out the contentions of the appellant:
"Shed for the temporary residence of the workers is constructed
and for that the permission of the Municipal Council is not
necessary. However, even for this no evidence was adduced."
From this, conclusion is sought to be drawn that the temporary
constructions were made and the case of the appellant was that no
permission is necessary. In fact, more than one temporary construction
was actually made, it is pointed out on behalf of the respondents. The
order of the Collector would show that as per the report of the Sub
Divisional Officer, the constructions were carried out, and out of which,
5 were temporary and which were no doubt removed by Yogesh
Waghdhare.
17. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that in
a matter relating to disqualification the case and finding against the
returned candidate must have been more specific and clear. We are of
SAMPADA YOGESH WAGHDHARE v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
the view that having regard to the order which has been passed, we do
not think that any case is made out for interference. There is no case
raised by the appellant that for temporary construction, permission was
obtained. Appeal will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal dismissed.