Murarilal Yadav vs The Chhattisgarh State Election Commission and Others

Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.

Petitioner in December, 1999 contested the election of President of Nagar Panchayat, Kharod, but Could not succeed. He was required to submit the account of election expenses, but he failed to submit the same within time. District Election Officer after lapse of a long period issued letter dated 25/06/2004 calling explanation for delay in submission of the election account and again on 09/07/2004 a reminder was served on Petitioner. In reply to those letters, Petitioner frankly stated that due to ignorance he could not file his account of election in time. Election Commission vide impugned order for non-submission of account of election expenses in time, disqualified the Petitioner for five years for being elected as President or Councilor.

Sub-clauses (5), (6) & (7) of Clause 10 of the Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 reads as below:

(5) Where the Election Commission decides that a contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified u/s 14C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or as the case may be, Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 for the failure.

(6) Any contesting candidate who has been called upon to show under-paragraph (5) may within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit in respect of the matter a representation in writing to the Election Commission, and shall at the same time send to the District Election Officer a copy of his representation together with a complete account of his election expenses if he had not already furnished such an account.

(7) The District Election Officer shall, within five days of the receipt thereof, forward to the Election Commission the copy of the representation and the account, if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further appropriate action.

Section 32C of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as below:

If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person-

(a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by or under this Act, and

(b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official Gazette declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the Order.

It is clear that law requires a specific notice to show cause why Petitioner should not be disqualified and further it is obligatory on the part of State Election Commission to decide after due consideration of the comments recorded by District Election Officer, if any, whether the Petitioner has any good reason or justification for his failure. Undisputedly, no notice calling the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified has been issued and served on him and also State Election Commission did not in conformity with the provisions consider the explanation of the Petitioner.

In the result, the impugned order passed by the State Election Commission violating the mandatory provisions of law cannot be sustained; therefore, the impugned order is quashed. However, the State Election Commission is not abstained from proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. No costs.