KESHAV JADHAV Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Keshav Jadhav, the writ petitioner, who contested as an independent candidate for the State Legislative Assembly from 214-Maharajgunj Constituency, assails the correctness of the order No. 76/AP/LA/97, dated 8-2-1999 issued by the Election Commission of India, disqualifying him to be chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years, for his failure to lodge the account of election expenses, as required under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act) in this writ petition.

(2.) On receipt of report dated 18-1-1995 and 29-3-1995 from the District Election Officer, under Rule 89(1) of the Election of Conduct Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Rules), that all the contesting candidates from 214 Maharajgunj constituency have lodged their account of election expenses except the petitioner and 9 other candidates, a notice dated 9-1-1996 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 89(5) of the Rules, by the Election Commission calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under S. 10-A of the Act. In the said notice, the petitioner was also given further opportunity to submit his account of election expenses within 20 days of the receipt of the said notice before the District Election Officer and also to submit explanation for his failure to lodge the account earlier. The said notice was sent to the petitioner at the address given by him in his nomination papers and was served through the District Election Officer on the petitioner personally on 15-2-1996. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted his representation on 27-3-1996 stating that he has submitted the account of election expenses with the Returning Officer on the polling day itself. Thereafter the Commission forwarded copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 27-3-1996 to the District Election Officer and called for his supplementary report through letter dated 11-6-1997 and the District Election Officer vide his supplementary report dated 29-8-1998 and 11-11-1998 informed that the petitioner has not lodged his account of election expenses with the District Election Officer. In view of the above averments, the Commission was satisfied that the petitioner has failed to lodge his account of election expenses without any good reason or justification for such failure and, therefore, passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner under S. 10-A of the Act along with 64 other candidates from other constituencies for similar failure and thus the petitioner stood disqualified with effect from 8-2-1999 to 7-2-2002.

(3.) Assailing the validity of the abovesaid order, the present writ petition is filed contending that before passing the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner under S. 10-A of the Act no notice was served, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's v. The Election Commissioner, New Delhi 1978 (1) SCC 405 : (AIR 1978 SC 851), when the Election Commission is a Tribunal, while discharging quasi-judicial functions under the Act, it has to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. That apart, the Election Commission has not considered the case of the petitioner singularly, but it was considered along with a lot of 64 others and passed a common order, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that when the civil rights of the petitioner are affected, the Election Commission should have given personal hearing to the petitioner. In view of the above grounds, the learned Senior counsel contended that the order passed by the Election Commission is liable to be set aside.