Judgment : 1. The present petitioner was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter as a Sarpanch of village Asegaon Gram Panchayat, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. The present respondent no. 4 filed Complaint stating that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher with the school run by Mukteshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. He has not obtained prior permission of the management, so also, the said school is getting aid from the Zilla Parishad and, therefore, it is a local authority. 2. The additional Collector vide its Judgment and Order dated 30/12/2010 held that the petitioner is disqualified to contest the election in view of Section 14 (i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 [ For short, ‘ Act of 1958 ’ ] and in view of Sub Section ( 2 ) of Section 42 of the M.E.P.S. Rules. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed Appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 4/5/2011. The petitioner has assailed the said Judgments before this Court. 4. Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (i) the authorities have failed to consider that Rule 42 ( 2 ) of the M.E.P.S. Rules have been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Bombay University and College Teachers’ Union V/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1990 ( 2 ) Bombay Cases Reporter – 324;(ii) Even otherwise the petitioner has produced on record the due permission from the management to contest the election; (iii) the authorities have failed to consider that the petitioner is neither servant of the Govt. nor that of the local authority. As such, the petitioner can not be disqualified U/s 14 ( i ) of the Act of 1958. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of RangnathSitaram Yerawar & Others V/s V.N.Muley & another reported in 1992 ( 1 ) Mh.L.J. 853 and another unreported Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BhagwanS/o Nathaji Mirkad V/s The State of Maharashtra & Others [ W.P. No. 6481 of 2007 ]; (iv) The said Act is a complete Code in itself. When the statute does not prescribe for any other ground of disqualification. When the statute does not prescribe for any other ground of disqualification. The petitioner could not have been disqualified only because he was at the relevant time working as the Assistant Teacher with the College. The provisions of the other Acts can not be imported and can not be taken aid of while interpreting the provisions of the said Act, more particularly, when it is complete Code in itself. 5. Per contra, Mr. R.V. Gore, the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 4 with all his persussive skill submits that ( i ) the object and spirit behind the enactment will have to be considered. Whenever an exception is sought to be carved out, the statute lays down an explanation or exception to the same just as it is laid down in Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, as no such explanation is given to Section 14 ( i ), the wider interpretation to the said provision will have to be given; (ii) as the said institution is receiving aid from the Zilla Parishad, it will come within the definition and ambit of servant of local authority. For the said purpose, Mr. Gore, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JayaBachchan V/s Union of India & Others reported in 2006 ( 5 ) SCC – 266and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Velingkar Brothers reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 241 ; (iii) The term ‘ office of profit ’ has been given wide interpretation and the restricted meaning can not be attributed to it. The object will have to be considered and considering the object that a person who is elected to the office, he should not hold any other office, will have to be considered. The object will have to be considered and considering the object that a person who is elected to the office, he should not hold any other office, will have to be considered. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Consumer Education & Research Society V/s Union of India & Others reported in 2009 ( 9 ) SCC – 648 and in case of BiharilalDobray V/s Roshanlal Dobray reported in 1984 (1) SCC – 551; (iv) It is submitted that five ( 5 ) tests are laid down for considering whether a person is a servant of the local authority or not as has been culled out in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of NaynaDnyanoba Pawar ( Dr.) V/s Vimal Nandkishor Mundada ( Dr. ) & another reported in 2008 (1) Bom. C.R. 256. The present case would be governed by said principles and (v) Taking into account the intention of the legislature, the interpretation given by the authorities is just and legal and no error can be found in the Judgment of the authorities below. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions as contended by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions, relevant for the determination of the present lis : Section 14 ( 1 ) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 : No person shall be a member of a panchayat continue as such, who – (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (g) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (h) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (i) is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local authority ; or II) Rule 42 ( 2 ) M.E.P.S. Rules : Subject to the provisions of subrules ( 3 ) to ( 6 ) [ both inclusive ], an employee may, with the previous permission of the Management in writing, contest election to public offices ( other than those mentioned in sub-rule ( 1 ) at the Local, District, State or National level. III) Section 3 ( 31 ) of General Clauses Act : “ Localauthority ” shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund. 7. III) Section 3 ( 31 ) of General Clauses Act : “ Localauthority ” shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund. 7. A right to get elected is a statutory right, so also a right to retain the office to which a person is elected is a statutory right. The elected person can not be asked to demit the office prior to his or unless and until he has incurred the disqualification as contemplated in the statute. Section 14 of the said Act lays down the grounds on which a member of the Panchayat shall stand disqualified. Section 14 ( i ) of the Act of 1958, with which we are concerned, disqualifies a person to be a member of Panchayat if he is a servant of the Govt. or a servant of any local authority. 8. In the present case, the petitioner is Assistant Teacher in a school which is run by a private management receiving grant-in-aid. The petitioner is disqualified on the count that as the said school is getting aid from the Zilla Parishad and would, therefore, come within the ambit and purview of the terminology ‘ local authority ’ i.e. the servant of ‘ local authority ’. 9. ‘ Local authority ’ is not defined under the statute with which we are concerned. Section 3 ( 31 ) of the General Clauses Act defines ‘ local authority ’. A proper and careful scrutiny of the language of Section 3 ( 31 ) of the General Clauses Act suggests that an authority in order to be a local Authority, must be of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners, possessing, therefore, many, if not all, of the distinctive attributes and characteristics of those bodies, but possessing one essential feature, namely, that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with the control and management of a municipal or local fund. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Rangnath Sitaram Yerawar referred supra has held that a cooperative society does not fall within the meaning of ‘ local authority ’, so also, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Nathaji Mirkar referred supra has held that a person working as a junior lecturer in a college though receiving aid from the Government, would not incur disqualification and a private school or college would not be covered by the definition of ‘ local authority ’. The school run by a private management simply because it receives grant-in-aid from the Zilla Parishad can not come within the ambit and purview of the terminology ‘ local authority ’. The school of which the petitioner is Assistant Teacher is not entrusted by the statute with such governmental function and duties as are generally entrusted to municipal bodies, such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality or civic duties and functions which otherwise are governmental duties and functions. The petitioner as such can not be said to be a servant of a ‘ local authority ’. 10. The Judgments in a case of Jaya Bachchan V/s Union of India and the Commissioner of income Tax V/s Velingkar Brothers referred supra relied by Mr. Gore, the learned counsel deals with the interpretation of the term ‘ office of profit ’, which would not be relevant in the present case. There is no provision in the statute disqualifying a person to be a member of Panchayat if he holds the office of profit. A member of Panchayat can be disqualified only on the grounds enumerated in the statute. The Act of 1958 is a complete Code in itself. One can not import the grounds of disqualification of other statute for disqualifying a member of Panchayat. A ground alien to the statute can not be invoked to disqualify a member of the Panchayat. The same would be against all tenets of law. 11. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the term ‘ office of profit ’ should be given wider interpretation and shall be deemed to have been included in Section 14 ( i ) of the Act of 1958 is accepted, that would tantamount to legislating with regard to the ground of disqualification, which is impermissible. 11. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the term ‘ office of profit ’ should be given wider interpretation and shall be deemed to have been included in Section 14 ( i ) of the Act of 1958 is accepted, that would tantamount to legislating with regard to the ground of disqualification, which is impermissible. All the Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent deal with the interpretation of the term ‘ office of profit ’ which is not a ground of disqualification under the Act of 1958. 12. The petitioner is also disqualified on the ground that he had not sought prior approval/permission of the management for contesting the election as required in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 42 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ]. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Bombay University and College teachers’ Union referred supra has held that Sub Rule ( 2 ) of Rule 42 of the said Rules is void as it lacks guideline and gives unbridled discretion to the management. Even otherwise, the management has permitted the petitioner to contest the election by its certificate/letter dated 13/8/2010. 13. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, it will have to be held that the Judgments passed by the authorities disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he is an employee of a private school and the same would come within the ambit and purview of ‘ local authority ’, is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 14. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’, however, with no order as to costs.