R R ' Na V . ---" w ma W PUR C.G. 16W6 12011 Smt..Pushpa ahu. W/o Yugal Kishore Sahu, aged about z‘ S 42 years Rlo Ward No. 15, Malhar, Tah. Masturi, Dist. ilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDANTS: / 1. State Election Commission, Through Secretary, —-——___ Mahanadi Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, Dist. Raipar (C.G.) District Election Officer, Biiaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) Returning Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Malhar, Tah. Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) . State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Locai Self Govrnment; through its Secretary, Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) ' NSTITUTION OF INDIA J , v ' U‘wKxgggpw \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE w.P..(c) No. PETITIONER: , B 4 e PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1078 OF 2011 Smt. Pushpa Sahu Versus State Election Commission & Others (Wrrt Petmon under Amcie 226/227 of the Constitution of lndla) Slngle Bench Hon ble Shn Satush K Agmhotn J PETITIONER RESPONDENTS _ Piesenf z- Shn B P Gup§a Advocate for the petmoner Shn V V S Moorthy, Sr Advocate Mth Shn Panka] Shnvasbava Advocate for the respondenis No 1 to 3 Shn P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No 4 RDER ORAL ‘- éPassed on this 14 day of July. 201 1) 1’: Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.91 .2011 (Annexure P-_1) passed by the respondent No.1, disqualifying the petitioner for failure to lodge the amount of election expenses, within the prescribed time underprovisions of 32-C of the C.G. Municipatities Act, 1961 (for short “#té Act, 1961’). The brief indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner contested the election for the post of President; Nager Panchayat ’ Budhar, which was held on 21.12.2009. The result was declared on 27.12.2009, holding the petitioner as elected President. The petitioner, thereafter, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, med statement of account. The petitioner further filed statement of accounts on 18.03.2010, pursuant to show cause notice dated 12.03201 0 along with the reply. The respondent No.1 relying on provisions of 32-B of the Act, 1961, wherein it is prescribed that every contesting candidate at an election of President shall, within thirty day\siro{n the date oi eiection of the returned candidate, lodge with the officer notified by the State Election Commission an account of his election expenses impugned order. 4. Shri Moorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 fairly submi‘s that the respondent No.1 has failed to notice the time prescribed under clause 10 (6) of the Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997, which was passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 32-A of the Act, 1961. Ciause 10(6) clearly provides that if any contesting candidate who has been called upon to show cause under paragraph (5), may. within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit a complete account of his election expenses, if he had not already furnished .r t such an account. “10 Report by the dstnct election amoer as to the lodging of the account of etectron expenses and the decision of the Election Commissioner thereon (1) As soon as may be after the expiration of the hme specified in the Act for the lodging of the ewount of election expenses the District Eiection onicer shell sent a report to the Election Commission about evely contesting candidate, on the following points : - (a) The name of the contesting candidate; (b) Whether such candidate has lodged his account of election expenses and if so, the date on which such account has been Iodwd; and (c) Where in his opinion such account has been lodged within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order. (2) Whether the Drstnct Electron Officer Is of the opinion that the account of electron expenses of any contesting candidate has not been Med In manner required by the Act and this order he shall With every such report forward to the Electron Commission the account of election expenses of that candidate. (3) Immediately after the submission of the report referred to in sub-paragraph (1) the District Election Officer shall publish a copy thereof by ahixmg the same to his notice board. (4) As soon as may be after the receipt of the report referred to in sub-paragraph (1) the Election Commission consider tie same and decide whether any contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order. ‘ \ \ (5} Where we Election Commission decides ht a conlesting candidate has failed to lodged his amunf of election expenses within the time and in the manner Iequired by the Act em this Order, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified urder Section 14-C of the M.P. Municipal Corporeh‘on Act, 1956 or as the case may be, section 32-C, of the MP. Municipalities Act, 1961 for the failure. (6) Any contesting candidate who has been called upon to show umr paragraph (5) may wiWn fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submitin respect of the matter e representation in writing. to the Election Commission, and shell at the same time send to the District Election Ohicer, a copy of his represenbdon together with a complete account of his election expenses if he had not already fumished such an account. (7) " The District Election airioer shatr, within ive days of the receiptthereof, forward to the Elecdon Commission the copy of the representation and the account. if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further appropriate action. " There is no dispute that on the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner has deposited complete account of election emenses with reply within a period of fifteen days i.e. on 18.3.2011 and replyto the show cause notice dated 12.3.2010 on 19.03.2010. Both the facts are admitted, as is evident from the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner under the provisions of 32-C is bad in law and vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.01 .2011 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. 6. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashOK (”g C) /