AJAY JAISWAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing correctness and validity of order dated 14-05-2013 passed by the State Election Commission, by which, the petitioner has been declared disqualified" under Section 32(C) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in Short "the Act of 1961"). The relevant factual matrix necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner contested election for the office of President, Nagar Panchayat, Pali in the election held on 23-12-2009. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes, was declared elected for the post of President vide declaration certificate dated 27-12-2009 issued by the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted his election expenses account in the office of Assistant Returning Officer on 04-01-2010, who in turn, forwarded the said account to the District Election Officer vide memo dated 08-01-2010 (Annexure P-3). However, account so submitted by the petitioner before the Assistant Returning Officer on 04-01-2010 and forwarded to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010 were not treated as having been submitted before the District Election Officer within the time and in the manner prescribed, therefore, the State Election Commission issued a notice to the petitioner on 26-02-2010 to show cause as to why the petitioner be not disqualified for having failed to submit election expenses account within the time and in the manner prescribed. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted that he had submitted his election expenses account before the Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pali in prescribed proforma, but the same was returned to him for necessary correction and thereafter, necessary correction having been made, it was again submitted. Upon submission of petitioner's explanation, the Collector also vide memo dated 20-10-2010 informed the State Election Commission that the election expenses account have not been found to be submitted in the manner prescribed, and therefore, returned the same, due to which, the petitioner could not submit accounts on or before 27-01-2010 but informed that the accounts were submitted before the Chief Municipal Officer within the time, therefore, the delay may be condoned.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had submitted the election expenses account as early as on 04-01-2010 before the Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pali. However, the same was returned to the petitioner, as there was some defect. Those defects were corrected and thereafter, it was again submitted before the Assistant Returning Officer, who in turn, vide memo dated 08-01-2010 forwarded the accounts to the District Election Officer. The petitioner again submitted corrected copies of expenses on 16-02-2010. Thus, the petitioner did submit the accounts though, before the Assistant Returning Officer but there were certain defects which were rectified. In fact, the Assistant Returning Officer also forwarded the accounts vide memo dated 08-01-2010. The defects, if any, were also rectified and second submission was also made on 16-02-2010 before the Officer Incharge of election expenses account, Nagar Panchayat, Pali. Thus, the petitioner had cogent reason or justification for his failure. The Collector had also recommended the case of the petitioner but the Election Commission did not consider the relevant aspects of the matter, particularly submission of the expenses account before the Assistant Returning Officer, forwarded to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010 and submission of corrected and rectified election expenses account on 16-02-2010. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several authorities.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Election Commission supported the order of disqualification and submits that the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of law. It is argued that the law in no uncertain terms requires the petitioner to submit election expenses account before the District Election Officer within a period of 30 days. The petitioner failed to give any explanation whatsoever as to why he did not submit the election expenses account before the prescribed authority. Submission that the accounts were submitted before the Assistant Returning Officer does not constitute any explanation. The District Election Officer received the accounts of the petitioner after delay of 20 days on 16-02-2010 and information disclosed by the Collector would show that the petitioner had not submitted the accounts before any competent authority and that too was not proper but defective, which was returned to the petitioner for being corrected. Thus, the petitioner did not come out with any specific reason or justification for such failure. All these facts were taken into consideration by the Election Commission, which upon due consideration of the explanation, held that the explanation is not acceptable. Therefore, the order passed by the Election Commission does not warrant any interference.