JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27-09-2016, passed by respondent no.1 dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 22-06-2016, passed by respondent no.2 Collector, whereby the petitioner stood disqualified from the post of Member of Gram Panchayat Pindkepar, Tahsil Tirora, District Gondia. 3. The record shows that the election to the Gram Panchayat Pindkepar took place on 25-07-2015, in which the petitioner was declared as elected member on 27-07-2015. As per the requirement under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 [for short, 'the aforesaid Act'] and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner as an elected member of the Gram Panchayat was required to submit account of election expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of being elected. In this case, the period was to expire on 27-08-2015. According to the petitioner, he submitted the account of election expenses before the Election Officer on 26-08-2015 and therefore he complied with the said requirement. 4. But, on 26-01-2016, respondent no.2 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be held to be disqualified under Section 14B of the aforesaid Act, for the reason that he had failed to submit account of election expenses within the stipulated period of time. The petitioner submitted his response on 02-02-2016 and placed reliance on a receipt issued by the Election Officer, wherein it was stated that the account of election expenses had been submitted by the petitioner along with three other elected members of the Gram Panchayat. 5. By order dated 22-06-2016, the respondent no.2 held that the petitioner was disqualified from holding the post of Member of the Gram Panchayat on the ground of having violated of Section 14B of the aforesaid Act. This order did not assign specific reasons regarding disqualification of the petitioner and it was a common order giving list of the members of various Gram Panchayats who stood disqualified due to violation of the said provision. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.1 under Section 16(1) of the aforesaid Act. By the impugned order dated 27-09-2016, the respondent no.1 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of disqualification passed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.1 under Section 16(1) of the aforesaid Act. By the impugned order dated 27-09-2016, the respondent no.1 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of disqualification passed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the said order. 7. On 07-03-2017, this Court issued notice in the Writ Petition and granted adinterim relief in favour of the petitioner, as a consequence of which he has continued as a member of the Gram Panchayat. 8. Mr. P.S. Wathore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted in support of Writ Petition that the impugned orders were wholly unsustainable because the petitioner had placed on record proof in the form of receipt dated 26-08-2015, issued by the Election Officer showing that the account of election expenses had been submitted by the petitioner, well within the stipulated period of time and that disqualification under Section 14B of the said Act was not attracted. It was submitted that there was no specific reason given by respondent no.2 in the order of disqualification dated 22-06-2016 and that there was no basis for the respondent no.1 to have concluded in the impugned order dated 27-09-2016 that the petitioner had failed to submit account of election expenses within the stipulated period of time. It was submitted that the receipt placed on record was wrongly disbelieved and the reason given for accepting the submission made on behalf of the authorities was wholly unsustainable. It was pointed out that in the present Writ Petition, the stand taken by the respondents was totally different from the stand taken in the appeal before the respondent no.1 and this demonstrated that the order of disqualification was passed against the petitioner in a very casual manner. The consequence of the said order being drastic, the authorities were required to place on record cogent material to support the order of disqualification and that in the absence of any such cogent reason the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Mr. Bissa, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it was for the petitioner as an elected member of the Gram Panchayat to have placed on record proper and cogent material to show that the account of election expenses was indeed submitted within the stipulated period of time. 9. Mr. Bissa, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it was for the petitioner as an elected member of the Gram Panchayat to have placed on record proper and cogent material to show that the account of election expenses was indeed submitted within the stipulated period of time. The receipt dated 26-08-2015, on which the petitioner placed reliance was a forged document and that in the absence of any other material, it was not possible to come to the conclusion that the account of election expenses was submitted within the stipulated period of time. It was further pointed out that there were documents on record to show that the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the list of candidates along with the dates showing submission of account of election expenses within the stipulated period of time. In the absence of any material to show compliance of Section 14B of the aforesaid Act, it was submitted that the impugned order did not deserve any interference. 10. Section 14B of the aforesaid Act provides for disqualification of an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, if he/she fails to lodge account of election expenses within a period of 30 days in the manner required by the State Election Commission. In the present case, a document placed on record obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is dated 18-12-2015, shows that the concerned Authority in the present case did not maintain any register pertaining to receipt of account of election expenses from the candidates. Thus, there does not appear to be a specified manner of lodging account of election expenses. In this situation, a document that would show submission of such account by the candidates bearing signature of concerned Authority would be enough to signify submission of account of election expenses by the candidate. In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon a receipt dated 26-08-2015, showing that the account of election expenses was submitted by the petitioner along with three other elected members whose names are also mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, this receipt was given on the reverse of the nomination form and that it was signed by the Election Officer. 11. According to the petitioner, this receipt was given on the reverse of the nomination form and that it was signed by the Election Officer. 11. The impugned order dated 22-06-2016, passed by respondent no.2, disqualifying the petitioner, does not contain any reasons other than stating that the petitioner had failed to submit account of election expenses. It is the only impugned order dated 27-09-2016, passed by the respondent no.1, which demonstrates the reasons given by the concerned Authorities and accepted by respondent no.1, in holding that the disqualification of the petitioner was justified. 12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27-09-2016, shows that the stand of the Election Officer/Tahsildar before the respondent no.1 was that receipt for submission of account of election expenses was issued in the name of the other three members whose names are found in the receipt dated 26-08-2015, but the petitioner had thereafter inserted his name in the said receipt and that therefore, the said document could not be relied upon for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed submitted account of election expenses on 26-08-2015. This reason was accepted by the respondent no.1 and it was held that the said document/receipt dated 26-08-2015, could not be relied upon by the petitioner to show that he had indeed submitted account of election expenses within stipulated time and on this basis, the appeal was dismissed and the order of disqualification was confirmed. In other words, existence of that receipt and it bearing signature of the concerned person to whom the account of election expenses was submitted by the other three members, was not denied. There was no discussion in the impugned order dated 27-09-2016, as to why the respondent no.1 accepted the claim of the Tahsildar/Election Officer that the petitioner had inserted his name later in the aforesaid receipt dated 26-08-2015, issued in favour of the other three elected members of the Gram Panchayat. 13. After this Court issued notice, affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 i.e. Tahsildar, wherein, surprisingly, it is stated with reference to the very same receipt dated 26-08-2015, that it does not bear signature of the Election Officer and that therefore, it is a false and fabricated document. 13. After this Court issued notice, affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 i.e. Tahsildar, wherein, surprisingly, it is stated with reference to the very same receipt dated 26-08-2015, that it does not bear signature of the Election Officer and that therefore, it is a false and fabricated document. Thus, the very same authority has taken a somersault and denied the very existence of the said document, whereas the said Authority had relied upon the said document before the respondent no.1 to claim that the other three elected members of the Gram Panchayat had submitted account of election expenses. The only objection taken before the respondent no.1 was that the petitioner had later inserted his name in the said document. Thus, the stand before this Court is a complete somersault by the respondent no.3. Although, copies of some sample signatures have been placed on record with the affidavit to show that the receipt dated 26-08-2015, did not bear signature of the concerned Election Officer, the said documents cannot be looked into, considering the complete change in stand of respondent no.3. 14. Along with the said affidavit, respondent no.3 has also placed on record a list of candidates who submitted account of election expenses, wherein the names of two of the said three elected members of Gram Panchayat are mentioned and dates on which they allegedly submitted account of election expenses is stated. These dates are different from the date 26-08-2015, mentioned in the aforesaid receipt wherein the names of the said two members of the Gram Panchayat is also found. Thus, while relying on the said document before the respondent no.1, the respondent no.3 had stated that the account of election expenses was submitted by the other two members on 26-08-2015 as per the aforesaid receipt, but before this Court it is claimed that one of them submitted the said account on 31-07-2015 and the other on 21-08-2015. As regards the third elected member of Gram panchayat whose name finds mention in the aforesaid receipt in the list filed along with affidavit before this Court, it is stated that the said member submitted account of election expenses on 07-09-2015, which is again different from the date claimed before the respondent no.1. 15. As regards the third elected member of Gram panchayat whose name finds mention in the aforesaid receipt in the list filed along with affidavit before this Court, it is stated that the said member submitted account of election expenses on 07-09-2015, which is again different from the date claimed before the respondent no.1. 15. This complete change of stand by the respondent no.3 before this Court raises serious doubt about the manner in which the order of disqualification has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record receipts issued under the very same signature pertaining to members elected in other Gram Panchayats of the same Tahsil. These documents have not been disputed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the said documents does show that receipt dated 26-08-2015, on which the petitioner relies and those documents were issued by the very same officer as regards the elected members to other Gram Panchayats also, pertaining to election conducted on the same date. In this backdrop, it becomes clear that the manner of signifying the receipt of account of election expenses by the respondent no.3 i.e. Election Officer for the said election was issuance of receipt under his signature to all such elected members to the various Gram Panchayats by stating their names and putting his signature under the same. Looked into at from this point of view, the document at page 24 i.e. receipt dated 26-08-2015 appears to be a receipt issued by the Election Officer, which bears the name of not only the petitioner but three other elected members to the Gram Panchayat. 16. As noted above, before the respondent no.1, the specific stand taken on behalf of respondent no.3 was that the said document/receipt dated 26-08-2015, indeed signified receipt of account of election expenses from the three members of Gram Panchayat whose names were stated therein. The only reason given to hold against the petitioner was that he had allegedly inserted his name in the said document. There was no material placed on record to support such an assertion on behalf of the respondent no.3. The only reason given to hold against the petitioner was that he had allegedly inserted his name in the said document. There was no material placed on record to support such an assertion on behalf of the respondent no.3. Apart from this, by disowning the said document, in the affidavit filed before this Court and by stating that the very receipt dated 26-08-2015 was a forged and fabricated document, the respondent no.3 has completely destroyed any ground that may have been available to claim that the petitioner had violated Section 14B of the aforesaid Act. It is obvious that the effect of a provision like Section 14B of the aforesaid Act on an elected candidate like the petitioner is drastic and that there needs to be cogent and sufficient material on record to take action under the said provision to declare an elected member like the petitioner as disqualified on the ground of having failed to submit account of election expenses within the stipulated period of time. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1039 of 2014 (Raju s/o Ramdhan Chouthmal vs. State of Maharashtra and others), wherein at paragraph 11, it has been held that when a matter pertains to disqualification of a returned candidate, unless a clear case in that regard is made out, an order of disqualification cannot be passed. 17. In the light of the said position of law and upon its application to facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the respondent no.2 proceeded against the petitioner and disqualified him without there being sufficient material to show that the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirement of submission of account of election expenses within the stipulated period of time. The petitioner had indeed placed on record receipt issued by the concerned officer showing that he along with three other candidates had indeed submitted the account of election expenses on 26-08-2015. The reasons and the material relied upon by the respondent Authority to refute the said claim are not supported by any cogent material on record, thereby demonstrating that the order of disqualification passed by respondent no.2 was passed without any reasons to support the same. The reasons and the material relied upon by the respondent Authority to refute the said claim are not supported by any cogent material on record, thereby demonstrating that the order of disqualification passed by respondent no.2 was passed without any reasons to support the same. The appeal was dismissed by the respondent no.1 only on the plea of respondent no.3 that the petitioner had allegedly inserted his name later in the receipt dated 26-08-2015, for which no further material was placed on record. 18. In the light of the above, it becomes clear that the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are quashed and set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in above terms.