OMPRAKASH DEWANGAN Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner by the instant petition has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 1 -5-2009 (Annexure-P/1) and the order of Annexure-P/20 dated 1-5-2009 whereby the State Election Commission (for brevity 'the Commission'), Respondent No. 1, has disqualified the Petitioner, who was elected as President of Municipal Council, Birgaon, for a period of 5 years from being the President or Member of the Municipal Council under Section 32C of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Council Act, 1961 (for short the Act').

(2.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Petitioner was elected as President of Birgaon Municipality on 19-12-2004. He submitted account of election expenses before the Chief Municipal Officer (for short 'the CMO') on 17-1-2005, which was forwarded to the District Election Officer, Raipur (for short 'the DEO') on 18-7-2005. THE Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 19/21 -4-2005 by the Commission (Annexure-P/4). THE Petitioner replied to the said notice on 1 -8-2006 (Annexure-P/5) and stated that he has already submitted his election expenses account on 17-1-2005. THE DEO vide his memo dated 5-11-2005 (Annexure-P/6) addressed to the Commission communicated that the Petitioner had submitted election expenses account to the CMO, Birgaon on 17-1-2005, which was forwarded by him to his office on 18-7-2005. THE Commission by its order in the note-sheet dated 14-8-2006 (Annexure-P/7) accepted the election expenses account submitted by the Petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Manindra SHRIvastava, learned Senior Advocate with SHRI Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would submit that under Section 32C of the Act the order of future disqualification for 5 years can be passed only after recording a finding that the Petitioner is disqualified for his failure to lodge the account of election expenses within time and in the manner prescribed by or under this Act and that too, by order published in the official gazette. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Commission has not recorded any finding and, therefore, the above order of future disqualification, not fulfilling the statutory requirement, is contrary to law.