1 WP 7661.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7661 OF 2011 Dhananjay S/o Jaising Hande Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Wakadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist. : Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Commissioner State Election Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai – 32. 3. The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. : Osmanabad. 4. The Tahsildar Paranda, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.S.More, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Phatake, Asstt..Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11/10/2011 2 WP 7661.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The notice was issued to the respondents for final disposal. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner had contested the election of Zilla Parishad, Jawala Nizam, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad in the year 2007. Respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and sought explanation as to why he shall not be disqualified U/s 15 (1) (B) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. The petitioner filed his Say stating the reasons for his inability to submit the expenses. Dis-satisfied with the same, respondent no. 3 disqualified the petitioner as a Councillor for further five ( 5 ) years from the date of order. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. More, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected in the year 2007. Section 15 ( B ) of the said Act was introduced in the statute in the year 2010. The said provision would not be applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner could not have been disqualified as a Councillor U/s 15 ( B ) of the said 3 WP 7661.2011 - [ J ] Act. 5. Mr. R.P. Phatake, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State submits that the petitioner had failed to submit the expenses and the consequences would follow. Respondent no. 3 rightly invoked the provisions of Section 15 ( B ) of the said Act and disqualified the petitioner. The said provision is mandatory and even no discretion is available to respondent no. 3. 6. Section 15 ( B ) of the said Act reads as under : “ 15 B (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person, - (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the official gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a Councillor or for contesting an election for being a councillor for a period of five years from the date of the order “. 7. The said provision has been introduced in the statute vide 4 WP 7661.2011 - [ J ] Maharashtra amendment 16/2010. The said provision provides for penal consequences. It is a trite law that the amendment in the statute would apply prospectively unless specifically provided. The amendment does not provide that it would apply retrospectively. The said amendment as it provides penal consequences can not be presumed to operate retrospectively. Even applying the doctrine of reading down a particular provision, it will have to be held that the said provision will apply to the candidates elected after the introduction of the said provision. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order can not be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7661.2011 - [ J ]