Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, 4. 2. Smt. Pramila Sinha aged 44 years W/o Uday Ram Sinha, disquaiified President of Nagar Panchayat Abhanpur Distt. Ralpur (C.G.) Vs. Chhattisgam State Election Commlssion through it's Secretary, Mahanadi Khand, Mantratay Raipur (C.G.) Colleotor Cum District Eiection Officer Raipur (C.G.) Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State / respondents By this petition under Artfele 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitloner has impugned the order dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure P-1) whereunder the Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission has dismissed the petition seeking review against order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 28.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.'i earlier. 2. The indisputable facts are that ths petitioner v/as elected to the office of the President, Naga.r Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur, in the election he!d in the month of December, 2004. Under Section 32-B of C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act') the petitioner was required to iodge an account of his election expenses. Under Section 32-C of the Act, on account' of failure to iodge an account of expenses, the State Election Commission oan declare the returned candidate as disqualified for being a member ofthe Municipa! Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, for a period offlve years from the date ofthe order. In the present case, the petitioner after having been deciared as siected, did not todge the account of eiection expenses. Thus, she was declared as disqualified vide order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, she has filed a vi/rit petition, bearmg VV.P. No.4456 of 2006 for the folbwing reliefs: • "To issue writ of oertiorari for quashing the orders contained !n documents Annexure P-1 dated 25.05.2006 passed by State Election Commission and Annexure P-2 dated 17.07.2006 passed by Chief Munoipai Officer, Nagar Panohayat, Abhanpur. • To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the aocounts expeno'iture filed by the petitioner in accordance with taw" 3. This Couri:, vide order dated 02.02.2007, passed in W.P. No.4456 of 2006 held that the State Election Commission on sufficient grounds offered by the returned candidate can reconsider the order passed by the State Election Commission under Section 32-C of the Act. Accordingty, the said petition was partly allowed with iiberty to the returned candidate to move the State Election Commission questioning the orders dated 25.05.2006 and 17.07.2006 for reconsideration. 4. The petitioner accordingty filed an application before the respondent No.1 and rsspondent No.1 by its order dated 21.02.2007 dismissed the same observing as under: "3nitfej?T ^Rl 'WWto ^S? -<.|1D|pii( 4 TR^T te ft^5H < ( ^ ) 4456/06 ^ V^ SS^ ^i ^?4 •BT Tp: T:pfRci1tt?-i ^iRi*] f^TR) 08.02.2007 c;^ y^ c^t Tpjt f | HFT-ftiI ^TOI-OI^I^ ^ aff^r ^ IR?RT ^ snw -r an^RcpT gra g^? ^Ricilct).! T? ^wlRslci f^|3ff ^ Q-qR fesT j y-i@ci1*.i v^isfn ^ ^ ^vt ^ y: ^SwRa T^fein (^fcft gtor f^sr) gro I^TI 7rai t to W^ ^ aWTPT gRT ETRT 32 (t]-) ^ «reTi?i ^raf^i ^RT !R^T STR^T IR TIlfef 3T??5T f^TR! 28.8.2006 4 f^crR^'M?} ^TOTuff^gcpTt 1 3n^q)T gp<r 5TO ^r q7r ^KC} fiww^ ^ T^ aaff wqiq^^ cZRf ^gr wff ^ cp^ q^ ^TO' W^HW.idii WW7 3 RI TOErewKT (.'Kiidul ywf ^ fS?w wr t 3T?p?q ^TOcRf f^zH ^ 'We' f {^) SllcJfi.cBI 3Tq^ ani^T f^.Tlq? 8.2.2007 ^ ^S^ ^ W^ w^ ^ awisf ^ t | »CTTlt('l6 •1'IYMIIrtcp] (m ^ EiHT 32 (?T) ^ a^pfn ^rRa 3n^?T ^ yTOa WfefF ®TaWTH ^? t I "R. ^TC.'-^iiyiCTy cp 31?^?! c^ giSRT ^ SlAf^T A qg ^Rcii*^ Ijf^lcCT T?gcf ^ t 1 yffll'M'liB 'f'lYlllCTcpl 3TQPRITT 1961, 'i'l^lfcicjil fN^FT fWi, W^T' ^W (^31 WfK^ sfl^ IR^) 3ff5?T 1997 4 ^NT Waj ftqfzH 3TRN ^ ^??ft ^ ;?Fc< T| gffqpT ^RT T^ 4 TTrRn 3iR?if fNw 25.5.2006 ^ felcf) 28.& 2006 ^ fr^RT ^ W :?RftfeT q?W q5i 3-R 7fN 3:I1E?R^t I" 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition, on the same grounds as raised in W.P. No.4456 of 2006. In addition to that, tearned counsei for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 has not applied its mind and has passed the impugned order. C>c> B. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused orders dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-3), 28.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), 21.02.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 and having an opportunity of going through the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.4456 of 2006, it is evident that respondent No.1 ;n its order dated 21.02.2007 has considered ail the points ofthe petitioner raised !n his review application. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the required account of expenses under Section 32-B of the Aot was not lodged within the prescribed period of 30 days, but the same was !odged after 5 months on 22.06.2005. There is no other reason which can mitigate the cireumstances restraining the petitioner in lodging the eiection expenses within the prescribed time. The order passed by respondent No.1 is unexoeptional. There is no infirmity, il'egality or irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, no writ/'direction can be issued in exeroising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. /. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge En<M