W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR W‘P. 1C! No.3267 of2008 Smt. Atchana Jaiswal PE'I‘ITIONER: -Versus— RESPONDENTS: Chhatu'sgarh State Election Commission and othcrs m Posr FOR ORDER ON I? JUNE, 2009 /_/, sdl’ - “dYa \D‘me wége g 2/, ‘ x HIGH COURT or CHHAmsGARH: 31mm w.P. (C) No.3267 of 2008 (Writ Peu‘tion under Article 226 of the Consiituu‘on of India) Shri Pmteek Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. w O R D E R (Passed on \mune, 2009) DHIRENDRA MIBHRA, J. 1. The petiu'oner by the instant petition has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10‘11 Februaly, 2006 (Annexure-P/ 2) passed by mspondent No. 1 whereby the pet'm'oner has been disqualjhed under Secu'on 32-0 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for being elected as President [and for being a member of the Municipal PETITIONER: Smt. Archana Jaiswal, W/o Kailash Jaiswal, aged about 38 years, R/o School Road, Manendmgarh, Disu‘ict Korea (CG) —Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Mahanadi Secretariat, through the Secretaly, Mantralaya Pan'sar, Raipur(CG) 2. District Election O$cerl Collector, Korea, District Kama (CG) Assistant Election OEcer/Sub Divisional OEcer, Manendragarh, Disu'ict Korea (CG) 4. Municipal Council Manendmgarh through the President Tahsil Manendragarh, Disuict Korea (CG) Council or Nagar Panchayat for a period of 5 yeam mm the date of passing of the order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case axe that the petitioner contested the elccu'on for the post of President of Municipal Council, Mansndragarh in the year 2004 and lost the election. The impugned order was passed on the gmund that the peiih’oner failed to lodge account of her election expenses as per Section 32-B of the Act? 3. Shri Prateek Shanna, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petiu'oner had lodged election expenses account before the Assistant Returning Ohicer on 11-12-2004, 1342—2004, 17-12—2004 &. 22-12-2004 (Annexure—P/ 1). She forwarded another account of election expenses in the prescribed proformaalong with 1 relevant documents and requested to accept the same (Annexure—P/4) vide her reply dated 14-8-2006. However, the impugned order was passed without following principles of natural justice and without ad‘ording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in conuavention of the provisions under Section 32-C of the Act. L 4. Referring to Section 32-0 of the Act, it was argued that before passing V the impugned order, respondent No.1 ought to have issued notice to the petitioner for ah'ording her an opportunity to show cause Whether she had any good reason or justincation for not lodging election expenses account. Show cause notice issued to the pedn'oner was never served on her, as the same does not‘bear her‘signature. 5. Relying upon the judgment in the matter of cannm Bank and others Versus Shrl Debasle Das and othersl, it was argued that even an , }‘ AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2041 adminisirative order which involves civil consequences .must be consistent with the rule of natuxal justice. . On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava learned counsel appearing > on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that account of election expenses is to be lodged before the o$cer authorized by the State Election Commission i.e. the District Election OEcer (Collector). The State Election Commission in exercise of powers under Article 243 (IA) of the Constitution of India read with Section 32—A of the Act has notihed Election Expenses (Lodging of Account) Order 1997 (in short ‘the order, 1997’). The election expenses account is to be submitted by a candidate in Form-B of clause—6 of the order. The account is to be submitted within 3O days mm the date of election (clause-7). 'The account is to be accompanied by an amdavit of the candidate in proforma—C and the same shall not be regarded as complete without such an aEdavit. .. From perusal of the petition, it would be evident that account of election expenses was not submitted before the competent authority in the prescribed proforma. It is not accompanied by any amdavit as per requirement of clause—7. Since the petitioner did not comply With the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Order, 1997,‘ she has been disqualified for a period of 5 years under Section 32-C of the Act. The petitioner was also served with a show cause non'ce dated 2/3 May, 2005 (Annexme-R/2) by one Bhajan Ram, peon of the omce of the Tehsildar, Manendragarh. After passing of the impugned order, the same has been duly notified in the omcial gazette vide notincation dated 16¢ February, 2006 (Annexhm—R/3). Since the petitioner has ’3é not challenged? the gazette nou'tication of Annexure-R/3, no mlief as claimed in the petition can be grantcd to the petiu'oner. 8. I have heaxd learned counsel for the parties. 9‘ On petitioner‘s own admission, elecu'on msult of the returned candidate was declaxed on 1942-2004. A candidate is required to lodge account of election expenses Within 30 days &om the date of election. The documents of Annexure—P/ 1 are the accounts submitted by the petitioner to he Assistant Returning O$cer hem time to time t dun'ng election process. The election expenses account in Form—B along with aE‘vit as mquired under section 32-B has not been nled ‘ along with the peton. Thereore, contention of the petitioner in this regard that she had sbstantially complied with the rovisions of ' u p Section 32—B of the Act is Without any substnce. a 10.From plain reading of Section 32-C of the Act, it can be safely inferred that before passing any order under Section 323, an opportunity is to -( be adorded to the candidate to show cause for the failure in lodging the elech'on epenses account. Where the candidate es not'show x do oo reason or justihcation for the failure, then only the order of disquication can be paed. alif ss 11.Shri Pmteek Shanna, learned counsel, has seriously disputed issuance of show cause notice ofAnnexuxe-R/Q on the ground that the same was never served upon her, as service report does not bear the acknowledgment of the petitioner. 12.1 am unable to accept the above argument. The omcers of the State Election Commission in discharge of their omcial duties have issued show cause notice (Annexure—R/ 2), the same has been served by the da iti f gd peon of the Tehsildar, Manendragarh. Therefore, in my considered opinion, scwice of show cause notice cannot be disbelicved solely on the ground that the same does not bear acknowledgment of the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has also not challenged the subsequent gazette notiiication which was published in the omcial gazette dated 16th February, 2006 and, themfOre, I also hnd force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner in the absence of chanenge to the gazette notificau'on. * 13.0n the basis of aforesaid discussion, l nnd no substance in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ( V . ‘ Sd/ \ Judge \ ,. \ \Dhirendta Mishrax