Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the respondents to issue No -Dues Certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of contesting the upcoming Panchayati Raj elections for Gram Panchayat at Falenda, Rajasthan, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. held that the petitioner could not be compelled to clear the dues recoverable from his wife, an erstwhile Sarpanch, as a condition for obtaining the certificate and contesting the election. The Court observed that the petitioner was neither a surety nor a guarantor for the dues owed by his wife and that there was no provision under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 or the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 authorising recovery of such dues from the family members of a Sarpanch.
Background
The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to issue him a No-Dues Certificate so that he could contest the forthcoming Panchayati Raj election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Falenda.
The petitioner’s wife had served as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Falenda during the 1995—2000 tenure. An enquiry was subsequently conducted in relation to certain Panchayat works, pursuant to which an amount was ordered to be recovered from her.
As she failed to deposit the amount, the authorities initiated attachment and auction proceedings against her property. She challenged those proceedings before the High Court. The Court had passed an interim order on 16 September 2009 restraining the respondents from auctioning her property, and the petition remained pending.
When the petitioner sought a No-Dues Certificate for contesting the election, the authorities refused to issue it on the ground that dues were outstanding against his wife. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court.
Contentions
The petitioner contended that under Section 19(m) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the failure to deposit the due amount by the wife of the petitioner does not bar him to contest the elections.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioner being the husband of the erstwhile Sarpanch , is ‘duty bound’ to deposit the amount owed against his wife. And, unless the amount is deposited, no dues certificate cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner, and he cannot be allowed to contest the elections.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that where any person owed any due amount, only the ‘surety’ or a ‘guarantor’ of that person can be held liable to deposit the due money. In the present case, the petitioner is neither a surety nor a guarantor of his wife with respect to the amount due. The proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner’s wife is a separate and independent matter between the State and the erstwhile Sarpanch. And the respondents cannot punish the petitioner by restraining him in issuing the no objection certificate in his favor to contest the Panchayati Raj elections.
The Court relied on the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 to observe, that in cases where Sarpanch fails to deposit the due amount, neither the main statute nor the statutory rules authorize the recovery of amount from the family members of that Sarpanch. The Court held that a Public Representative himself/herself is alone liable and responsible for his/her misconduct, and the authorities cannot go after their family members unless they are the designated surety or guarantor of these representatives.
The Court expressed its concern on the part of the respondent-authorities for compelling the petitioner to deposit the due amount owed by his wife, an erstwhile Sarpanch. The Court observed that the authorities failed to differentiate that both husband and wife are separate individual entity, and one cannot be held liable for the misconduct act of their spouse unless he/she had individually indulged in the same.
In the same manner, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the amount due owed by his wife in her capacity as the erstwhile Sarpanch, unless the enquiry proves that he was also involved in the misconduct of the works of Panchayat during his wife’s tenure as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Falenda.
The Court allowed the petitioner’s plea and directed the respondents to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of contesting the upcoming Panchayat Raj Elections.
[Ramlaxman Meena v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11020/2026, decided on 02-09-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Amit Jindal, Dipti Jindal, and Reena Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General and Prateek Saxena, Advocate