Disqualification for tax arrears remains a bar for the entire tenure of the Panchayat's current term.

The Petitioner challenged the order dated April 15, 2026, passed by the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 1) accepting the nomination of Respondent No. 3 for a Gram Panchayat bye-election

Respondent No. 3 had been elected for the 2022–2027 tenure but was subsequently disqualified on May 15, 2024, under Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, for failure to pay property taxes

This disqualification was upheld by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and the High Court in previous proceedings

Following the vacancy, a bye-election was scheduled for April 28, 2026. Respondent No. 3 filed a nomination, claiming that since he had now cleared the tax arrears, he was eligible to contest

The Returning Officer accepted the nomination, prompting this Writ Petition

The court primarily applied Section 13 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which defines qualifications for being elected "unless disqualified under this Act"

Section 14(1)(h) regarding disqualification for failure to pay taxes

Section 27, which defines the "term of office" as five years

Janabai v. Additional Commissioner (2018) 18 SCC 196, which affirmed that disqualification applies to acts or misdeeds occurring during the continuance of a member's term

Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati (2017) 1 Mh.L.J. 79, establishing that a person disqualified cannot continue for the remainder of the tenure

Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 4 Mh.L.J. 911 regarding the vitiation of elections when a disqualified candidate is permitted to contest

The Court rejected Respondent No. 3’s argument that clearing tax arrears per "Explanation 2" to Section 14(1)(h) restored his eligibility for the bye-election

The Court reasoned that the "tenure" of the Panchayat (2022–2027) is a single block under Section 27; a disqualification incurred during this term prohibits the individual from holding office for that specific remains of the term

Allowing a disqualified member to contest the resulting bye-election simply by removing the cause of disqualification would defeat the statutory objective of ensuring "clean" representatives and would reward the disqualified party with a second chance for the same term

The Court emphasized that disqualifications not carrying a specific statutory time limit (unlike criminal convictions) naturally extend to the entire five-year "term of office"

The High Court quashed and set aside the Returning Officer’s order dated April 15, 2026. The Writ Petition was allowed.

The Court clarified that the Petitioner could not be declared the winner automatically, as the unlawful acceptance of a nomination vitiates the entire election process for that seat