JUDGMENT : MANISH PITALE, J. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order passed by the respondent No.2, Collector Washim, holding that the petitioner was disqualified from continuing in the position of elected member of Grampanchayat, Wara Jahangir, Tahasil and District Washim, as also order passed by the respondent No.1, Divisional Commissioner dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was elected as member of aforesaid Grampanchayat in election held in the year 2015. On a complaint made by respondent No.4, who is also a member of the aforesaid Grampanchayat, proceeding for disqualification of the petitioner was initiated. The allegation made by respondent No.4, was that the petitioner was liable to be disqualified under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, as he had failed to pay tax to the Grampanchayat within three months of such demand being raised by the Gramapanchayat. The complaint of the respondent No.4, was based on certain information received under the Right to Information Act provided by the office of the Grampanchayat. 5. The petitioner in the proceedings before respondent No.2, Collector, contended that there was no ground for disqualifying him as member of Grampanchayat, because he had paid tax pertaining to all the properties belonging to him and insofar as payment of rent concerning a particular shop was concerned, he had already informed the Grampanchayat that the amount due could be adjusted from the amount already deposited by him with the Grampanchayat in respect of said shop and that in possession of the shop could be taken from the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had in fact deposited the tax pertaining to all the house properties belonging to him and that therefore, there was no substance in the complaint made by respondent No.4. 6. The respondent No.2 passed order dated 03.11.2017, taking note of the material on record. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had in fact deposited the tax pertaining to all the house properties belonging to him and that therefore, there was no substance in the complaint made by respondent No.4. 6. The respondent No.2 passed order dated 03.11.2017, taking note of the material on record. After considering the documentary material on record and written submissions filed by the rival parties, the respondent No.2 come to a conclusion that despite demands being made in respect of tax and rent payable for the shop, the petitioner had failed to deposit the same and further that despite demands being made for payment of tax pertaining to the house belonging to the petitioner, the tax amount was not deposited. On this basis, the application filed by respondent No.4 was allowed and it was held that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the aforesaid Act. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1, which stood dismissed, as respondent No.1, Divisional Commissioner, agreed with the findings rendered by the respondent No.2, Collector. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no material to show that any demand was ever raised by the Grampanchayat for demand of tax insofar as house properties were concerned. It was pointed out that as regards the demands raised towards rent for a particular shop, response was sent by the petitioner, categorically stating that he had already deposited statutory amount in excess of the rent due and that the arrears of rent could be adjusted against the said amount. It was further stated by the petitioner that the Gramapanchayat could take possession of the shop also. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material on record to show that any demands towards arrears of tax were served prior to the alleged notice sent by R.P.A.D. to the petitioner. It was pointed out that, insofar as house properties were concerned, the petitioner on his own had deposited the tax amount due and that therefore, no ground for seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act. On this basis the petitioner submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside. 9. It was pointed out that, insofar as house properties were concerned, the petitioner on his own had deposited the tax amount due and that therefore, no ground for seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act. On this basis the petitioner submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submitted that specific findings were rendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that despite repeated demands and notices, the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount of tax due from him and that therefore, order of disqualification was justified. 10. The learned AGP appeared on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2. 11. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the material on record. Disqualification of an elected member of Grampanchayat entails drastic consequences for a person who has been elected to the position of member Grampanchayat. Therefore, when disqualification of such an elected person is sought, the authorities are expected to properly consider and analyze the material on record to come to a conclusion, as to whether the elected member is liable to be disqualified under any of the clauses specified under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. In the present case, the specific allegation levelled by respondent No.4 against petitioner was that he had failed to pay tax due to the Grampanchayat within three months from the date on which such amount of tax was demanded and a bill for the said purpose was duly served on him, thereby attracting disqualification under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act. In order that such an application filed by the respondent No.4 to succeed, the authorities below were expected to analyze whether ingredients of Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act were made out in the present case. 12. For an elected member of the Grampanchayat to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act, it is necessary to place cogent material on record to show that there was a demand of tax from the Grampanchayat against elected member and bills for that purpose were duly served on him and further that the elected member failed to pay such tax within three months from the date on which such tax was demanded. 13. 13. In the present case, the material on record shows that the repeated demands that were referred to by the authorities below pertained to amount due from the petitioner towards rent in respect of one shop No.3. It was claimed that these demands were sought to be served upon him. Since he refused to accept the same, such demand was required to be raised by R. P. A. D. 14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to a letter dated 30.08.2016, whereby the petitioner informed the Grampanchayat that already an amount of Rs.39,000/- [Rs.Thirty Nine Thousand only] was deposited by him in respect of the said shop towards statutory deposit. It was further submitted in the said letter that the arrears of rent of Rs.25,200/-[Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred only] could be adjusted against the said amount and that balance amount be returned to him and further that the Grampanchayat could take possession of the shop from him. 15. In the first place, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the demands raised by the Grampanchayat in respect of said shop were refused to be accepted by him and ultimately they had to be sent by R.P.A.D., the demand pertained to alleged arrears of rent of the said shop and not tax as contemplated under Section 14(1)(h) of the aforesaid Act. As per letter dated 30.08.2016 sent by the petitioner, the Grampanchayat was further assured that even as regards the stated amount, he had made a proposal to the Grampanchayat as noted above. In any case, such demands and communications exchanged between the parties were wholly irrelevant to the controversy involved in the present case. Therefore, reference to the said shop and the alleged arrears of rent due from the petitioner would be of no consequence in deciding the question as to whether the petitioner was liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the aforesaid Act. 16. As regards dispute of arrears of taxes due from the petitioner in respect of his house properties also it is recorded by the respondent No.2 Collector in the impugned order that certain amount was due. 16. As regards dispute of arrears of taxes due from the petitioner in respect of his house properties also it is recorded by the respondent No.2 Collector in the impugned order that certain amount was due. There is nothing on record to show that demands were raised in respect of house properties towards tax and a bill for such purpose was duly served on the petitioner and further that the petitioner had failed to make deposit of the tax within three months of such demand. 17. In any case, the petitioner had placed on record tax receipts issued by the Grampanchayat itself dated 18.08.2016, showing that amount had been deposited towards tax by the petitioner in respect of the house properties. Therefore, the record shows that in the absence of any specific demand from the Grampanchayat, the petitioner had deposited amount towards tax and other charges with the Grampanchayat. 18. Hence, it becomes clear that the necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act were not existing in the present case and there was no material to support the same. The respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1 in the impugned orders failed to appreciate the material on record in the proper perspective and on a mere allegation by the respondent No.4, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be disqualified. 19. In cases seeking disqualification of elected members, the authorities are expected to analyze the material on record objectively and in appropriate manner so as to come to a conclusion that the ground for disqualification is clearly made out. Complaints in such cases obviously have political overtones and therefore, the authorities need to analyze and examine the material on record objectively and in a fair manner. It is found that in the present case, the authorities below failed to appreciate the material on record in the proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned orders are found to be erroneous. 20. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. 21. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a consequence of the order of disqualification passed against him, the authorities had taken steps to take election for that vacancy. Rule made absolute in above terms. 21. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a consequence of the order of disqualification passed against him, the authorities had taken steps to take election for that vacancy. In view of the fact the writ petition is allowed, there would be no necessity for the respondent authorities to conduct any election in that regard. The learned AGP shall inform the respondent Nos.1 & 2 regarding the orders passed today. 22. Steno copy be provided to the parties to act upon.