Husband Cannot Be Denied No Dues Certificate Over Former Sarpanch Wife's Dues: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner's wife was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Falenda, Bundi, from 1995 to 2000. After an enquiry a recovery order was issued against her and, when she did not pay, attachment and auction proceedings began; her writ petition against them has been pending since 2009, with an interim order of 16.09.2009 restraining the auction (paras 3, 7). Wanting to contest the forthcoming Panchayati Raj election for the same Gram Panchayat, the petitioner sought the required no dues certificate. The authorities refused it until his wife's dues were cleared, and the State contended that as her husband he was bound to pay them (paras 4-5).

The question was whether the authorities could make the petitioner pay his wife's dues, or refuse him the certificate he needed to contest the election (para 8). A surety or guarantor can be made to pay a debtor's dues, but the petitioner was neither; the recovery was a separate matter between the State and the former Sarpanch, and the authorities remained free to proceed against her directly (para 9). Neither the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 nor the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 authorises recovery from a Sarpanch's family members (para 9). A public representative alone answers for his or her misconduct, and unpaid dues create no civil or penal liability for the family (para 10). Husband and wife are separate entities: the husband could be asked to pay only if an enquiry proved that he was involved in the Panchayat's works or in the misconduct (para 10). Demanding the wife's dues as a condition for the certificate showed non-application of mind and was unwarranted (para 11).