GOVIND SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Election Commission. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Panchayat, Chhurikala, District Korba, in the result declared on 27.12.2009. Under the provisions of section 32 -B of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 19611), the petitioner was required to lodge with the officer notified by the State Election Commission, an account of his election expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of the election of the return candidate i.e. the petitioner. The petitioner lodged the account of his election expenses on 10.02.2010 with the respondent No. 2, after a delay of 13 days. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure R/2 -2) by the Secretary, State Election Commission under clause (10) of the Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 (for short 'the Order'). The petitioner did not submit any representation in writing to the election commission and also to the District Election Officer with complete account of election expenses and also no response to the show cause notice was filed.

(2.) THE Election Officer, by order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P/2) held that all the candidates including the petitioner had failed to lodge the account of election expenses under section 32 -A(1) of the Act, 1961 read with section 32 -B of the Act, 1961 with the officer notified by the State Election Commission, and also not filed any response to the show cause notice dated 26.02.2010 and accordingly, under the provisions of section 32 -C(b) of the Act, 1961, the petitioner was disqualified for a period of four years and four months from the date of the order i.e. 10.05.2011 to hold the post of President. It was also thereafter notified in the official gazette on 23.05.2011. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner made representations on 13.06.2011, 17.06.2011 and 02.08.2011. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4418/2011 contending that the date of hearing was fixed on 25.08.2011, however, the petitioner could not make himself available, thus a new date should have been given so that he could appear in person and put forward his case. The said petition was disposed of directing to give a new date of hearing i.e. 05.09.2011 for appearance of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 having considered the representations of the petitioner and his case as put forward by him, on the next date of hearing, held that considering the representation of the petitioner filed under section 32 -D of the Act, 1961, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. As provided under clause (10) of the Order, 1997, the petitioner has not submitted any representation, report or response pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2011 as indisputably the petitioner had failed to lodge the account of election expenses within the statutory period of 30 days and also no proper reasons in response to the show cause notice seeking condonation of delay in lodging the account of election expenses, belatedly, was made.

(3.) IT is next contended by Ms. Ali that once the account of election expenses as required under section 32 -A(1) read with section 32 -B of the Act, 1961, has been filed though belatedly, the respondent No. 2 ought to have considered the same and passed an order removing the order of the disqualification. The delay was on account of bonafide belief as not being aware of the legal position.