MURARILAL YADAV Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(2.) IF the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person -

(3.) 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.