KOTAM ABBAI DORA Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed questioning the disqualification of the petitioner from contesting the General Election, be it Assembly or Parliament for a period of three years from the date of passing of the order i. e. , 07-8-1998 by the Election Commission of India. Consequently the petitioner is ineligible to contest in the ensuing elections. The last date for filing nomination is tomorrow i. e. , 28-8-1999. The petitioner in 1988 Assembly Elections contested from Ellavaram 38-Constituency, but he was defeated. Whether succeeded or defeated in the election, it makes no difference so far as the obligation to furnish the election expenditure is concerned. Such an obligation is cast upon Under Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act')- The time set is 30 days from the date of election for furnishing the expenditure incurred and the District Election Officer (District Collector) is the authority with whom the said accounts have to be lodged. It cannot be said that the provisions contained Under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act are not mandatory and are directory. On the ground that the said provisions of the Act have not been complied with and election expenditure has not been furnished to the authority concerned, a notice was served on the petitioner on 10-02-1996 and then order of disqualification was passed on 07-8-1998. The copy of the notice dated 28-12-1995 and the copy of the order dated 07-8-1998 are placed before us. Even though the petitioner disputes the receipt of the notice as also the order, we find his endorsement admitting the receipt of the copy of the order, his signature and the date of receipt of the said order was 10-02-1996. In so far as the order is concerned, it is clear from the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajaommangi, dated 17-9-1998 that the order has been served. Mr. S. Udayachala Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the same has not been served upon the petitioner. But this is an official proceeding issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer contained in his proceedings REF (3)/247/98 dated 17-9-1998 addressed to the petitioner. There is a statutory presumption that the same has been served upon the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to rebut the same. But there is no such material to rebut such statutory presumption. Apart from that, the writ petition also suffers from laches for the reason that the same is filed at the last moment on the verge of expiry of the period set for filing nominations.

(2.) FOR all the reasons above, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs.