Mi I? HSGH COURT OF CHHATTiSeARH AT BSLASPUR SIngSe Bench : Hon'bSe Shri Yijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. Writ PetitJOR No. 4373 of 2004 PETmONER: MuraiJiaS Yadav, S/o. Shri Teras Ram Yadav, aged about 36 years, resident of yi!!age Tiwari Para Kharod, P.S. Shlvrinarayan, Tahsii Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgjr Champa (CG. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Ths Chhattisgarh Stats ESsction Commisslon, through its Secretary, Mahanedi Khand, Mantraiaya Parisar, Raipur, CG. The Coilector and District ESection OlfScsr (Esthaniys Niry'achan), Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir, C-h£ampa, CG. 3. 4. Ths Nagsr Paijks Parishad, through its Chief Exeoutive Qfficer, Kharod, District Janjgjr, C'nampa (CG). The State of Chhatljsgarh, through sts Secretary, Department of Urbsn Adnninists~3tion snd Devsiopmsnt, D.K.S. Buiiding, Raipur, CG. Present:- Shri Bharat Rajput counse! for the pstitjoner. Shn B.D. Quru, counse! for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sumit Verma, Panei Lawyer for respondent No.4/Stete. ORDER (Passed on 9th February, 2007) Petitjoner in December, 1999 contested fhe siection of President of Nagar Panchayat, Kharod, but could not succeed. He l»va3required to submit the account of sSection expenses, but he faiiod to submit th@ sams v/ithin tims. District EIection Officer aftsr lapss of a long period issusd iettsr datsd 25/06/2004 caliing expianation for d©!aysn submissjon of ths sisction account and agsin on 09/07/2004 a rsmjndsr was se"v'sd on petitioner. Sn repSy to thos©ietters, petItioRsr frankSy statsd that due to ignorance hs couSd not fite his account of sjection in time. Eisctjon CommissioR vids impugnsd order for non-submtesion of account of electjon sxpenses in tims, disquaijfisd ths pstitjonsr for ^v'e ysars for being electsd as President or Counciior. 2) Sub-clsusss (5) (S) & (7) of Ciauss 10 of the Eiection Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging ofAccount) Ordsr, 1997 rsads as bs{ow: "(5) Whsro ths Eiection Comn'iissioR dscidss that a contesting candidate has faiied to iodge his account of etection expenses within the time and in ihe manner required by tne Act and this Order, it shal! by notlce In writing cal? upon the candidate to sholA' cause why h©shou!d hot bs disquaiifsed under Section 14-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipat Corporation Act, 195S or as the case may be, Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Mijnlcjpajitjes Act, 1961 for the fatjure. (5) Any contssting candidate who has bssn caiied upon to show under-paragraph (5) may within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit in respect of the matter a representation jn writjng to the EJectlon CQ.mmissJon, and sha!} at the ssms tims ssnd to the District Election Officer a copy of hjs repressntation togsther with a complete account of his eiection expenses sf he had not a!ready fumished such an sccount (7) Ths District EJection Officer shaii, v»'ithj". five days of the receipt thereof, forward to the ESsction Commission the copy of the representation and the account, if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further appropriats action." 3) Section 32-C of ths Chhattisgarh Municjpaiitiss Act, 19S1 reads as bsiov/: "!f the State ESection Commission is satisfiscS thst a person- (a) has faiisd te Jodge an sccount of sSection expenses within the time and in the manner required by or under this Act, and (b) has no good rsason or justillcation for ths faslure, the State Electson Commssslon shaii, by order pubiished jn the Officja! Gazettee deciare him to be disquaiified and any such person sha!! be disquaiified for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Municjpaj Cound! or Nagar Pancahyat, as tho cass may be, for a period not exceeding five years from the date oftheQrder. 4) It is ciear that iaw requiros a spscific notice to show cause why p©tition©rshouid not be disquaiified and further It is obiigatory on ths part of State Eiection Commission to decids aftsr due consideration of the comments recorded by DJstrict ESection OfRcer, $f any, whethsr the petitsonsr has any good rosson or justification for his faJSure. Undisputediy, no notjce caiiing ths pstitioner to shov,' csuse why he shouid not bo disqusiffied hss bssn JssuecS and servsd on him ancS aiso SSate ESsction Commissso." did not in conformit/ with the provislons conssder the exptenatlon ofthe petitionsr. 5) !n the rssuit, the jmpugnod order passsd by ths State Eisction Commissjon ysoiatiRg th© msndatory provisions of Sav»' cannot be sustainsd; therefore, the impusnsd ordsr Is qusshed. Howev©r,the Ststs Eiectjon Commissjon js not abstained from proceeding l«vjththe mattsr IR accordance 'A'ith jaw. No costs. Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge RsjiJU