E‘LCIH COUKK‘ OH CHHAT’HSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION §C) N0. 3 108 of2009 PETITIONER : Hemant Katakwar, Agad about 51 years, S/o Shri Mannilal Katakwar R/o Baloda, Tahgil Baloda, Dislt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS v RESPONDENTS : I. State Election Cemmission, Mahmadi Division, Mmxwmaya Campus, Raipur, D£st. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Distfict Election Ofiicer (Municipal Council), Distt. Jaqigir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PE’E'H‘IGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF FHE CONS'I‘ITUI ION OF INDIé SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aggotri. J. Present: Shri H.P.Agrawal5 Advocate for the petitioner’ Shri Arum Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 03r day of July, 2009) Heard. Challange in this petitien is to the order éated 29.05.2006 (Annexure I’ll) whereby the Stats Election Commission, in exercise of its power under provisions of section 32-C of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act, 1961 i), has neciared the petitioner disquaiified for contesting the election for next five years. \1 ‘ 1/ r ' Admittedlyt the petitioner contested the election for the post of President: Municipai Councii, Baioda. The result of the election was declared on 19.12.2004. $ection 32-13 ofthe Act, 1961 provides for lodging ofaccount of election expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. The said requirement is mandatory as there is no provision for \ ’ grant ofrelaxation or condonation of delay in lodging of account of election \ \\ \ expenses. The petitioner lodged his account of election expenses on 04.02.2005 after a delay of 15 days. Section 32-C which reads as under, provides for disqualification if a candidate has failed to lodge account of election expenses within time and mannewf required under the Act. g\ “32-C. Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses. — If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person a (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by 0r under this Act; and (b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official'Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Municipal Council or Nagai’ Panchayat, as the case may he, for a period of five years horn the date ofordor” Consoiidation, Rabindranath Bose and Others vs.rThe Union of India and 0thersz, 1 Am 1967 sc 1272 I 1970 (1) soc 84 V\ The petitioner has failed to lodge account of election expenses within time and has further not submitted any explanation for the delay. Learned counsel appearing for the yetitioner submits that. the petitioner was not aware of the requirement oflaw and as such, it could not be lodged in time. 4. Be that as it ay, if a candidate’who has tiled nomination for contesting election for the post of President, is not aware of the legal provisions, he cannot be given benefit of igiorance of iaw and as such, the order impugned herein does not warrant any interference. Even otherwise, tlierei’is an inordinate and unexplained delay of three years from the date passing of the impugned order i.e. 29.05.2006 till filing of this petition on 18.6.2009. Thus, at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. (See : Chandra Bhushan and another vs. The Deputy Director of Urtar Pradesh diegional) Lucknow and Otherf, Ramchandra ShankarDeodhar and others vs. The State QfMaharashtra and orhers3, State QfMP. vs. Nandiaf‘, UP. Jal; igam aim? another vs. Jashwcmt Sing}! and workers, Yunus $aboabhaz) A Hamid Padvekar v‘ State of Maharashira", Trick'p Kumar Dingal and others Ks. Smte of West Bengal and Others?) This Court in Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala vs. State 0f Chhattisgarh & Othersgon 3-1—2007 observed that “Ike cause of action arose on 6—6—1995, when the communication was sent by the State Government to the authorities for grant of revised pay—scale. The petitioner has not taken any steps ever since till these petitions were jiied in December, 2006 and remained fardy and indoient. This belated approach wouid certainly cause hardship and inconvenience to other side.” Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of ihe case on hand, this petition deserves to be and is accorciingly dismissed. Sdl- Judge 1“ (1974‘) i bu“; 317 )g (2x111 1987 SC 251) (2006) 11 sec 464 6 (n 2009 {3) sc 4s?) 7 (2009) 1 scc 768) 8 WP (S) No.7222 of 2006