Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has directed authorities to issue a no dues/no objection certificate to a man seeking to contest the forthcoming Panchayati Raj elections, holding that he cannot be made liable for recovery of dues against his wife, a former sarpanch.The single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order on Sept 2. “Husband and wife are separate entities and the petitioner could not be asked to pay his wife’s dues unless an inquiry established that he too was involved in the panchayat works or misconduct,” the bench said.Calling the authorities’ action a “classic example of non-application of mind”, the court termed the insistence on payment of the wife’s dues for obtaining the election certificate unwarranted.Petitioner Ramlaxman Meena sought the NOC certificate to contest the election for sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Phalenda in Bundi district. His wife, Laxmi Bai, had served as sarpanch during 1995-2000, following which recovery proceedings were initiated against her over an amount allegedly due in connection with work undertaken during her tenure. The authorities refused to issue the certificate to Meena unless the dues against his wife were cleared.After hearing the arguments, Justice Dhand noted that the wife challenged the recovery and attachment proceedings through a 2009 writ petition, in which an interim order dated Sept 16, 2009, restrained authorities from auctioning her property. Her petition remains pending.“The petitioner was ‘neither a surety nor a guarantor’ for his wife’s recovery liability and the dispute was an independent matter between the state and the erstwhile sarpanch. The authorities could proceed directly against the former sarpanch for recovery, but could not recover the amount from her husband,” the court observed.The court further pointed out that neither the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, nor the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, contain any provision authorising recovery from family members of a sarpanch.In a strong observation, Justice Dhand said “a public representative is individually responsible for his or her misconduct” and that “such liability cannot automatically become a civil or penal liability for family members”.
