L HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE CHHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondents W.P.No.4456 of2006 Smt Pramila Sinha, W/o Uday Ram Sinha, Aged 44 years, Disqualified President, Ncgar Panchoyat Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C6) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Election Commission throu^ its secretary Mahanandi Khand Mantraley Parisar Raipur (C6) 2. State of Chhattis9arh Throu9h Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralay &KS Bhawan, ftaipur (C6) 3. District Election Officer (Local Election) through Collector, Raipur (C©) 4. t>eputy bistrict Election Officer (Loca! Election) throigh Collector, Raipur (C6) 5. Chief AAunicipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Abhanpur Ustrict Raipur (C6) 6. Mannulal Sinha Officiatin9 President Ncgar Panchcyat Abhanpur District, Raipur (CG) Present :- Shri Jitendra Nerth Nande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bt> Suru, counsel for respondents No.l & 3 to 5. Shri Utkarsh Verma, t5y fioyernment Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.6. ORAL OR&ER (Passed on 02.02.2007) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed seeking followin9 substantial reliefs: • To issue writ of certiorari for quaAing the orders contained in documents Annexure P-1 dated 25.05.2006 passed by State Election Commission and Annexure P-2 dated 17.07.2006 passed by Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Abhanpur. • To issue iwrit of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the accounts expenditure filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 2) Petitioner was elected in the month of &ecember 2004 as President of N090? Panchayat, Abhanpur, District - Raipur (Cff). Though she was eiected representative, she was disqualified by the State Election Commission vide impugned order (Annexure P/l) dated 25.05.2006 for five years for being elected as President or Councilor of the Municipality/Nagar Panchoyat on account of failure on her part to deposit the election expenditure in accordance with the rules. Pursuant to ordsr passed by the Election Commission dated 25.05.2006, the Chief Municipal Officer', Naga- Panchayat, Abhanpur, Oistrict - Raipur issued cn order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P/2) directing the Vice President Mannuia! Sinha to work as president. Respondents contested the petition, except respondent No.6, who did not appear to contest the petition. 3) Adrnittedly, vide ChhattiS9arh Municipalities (Amendment) Act No.IO of 2004, followin9 provifiions have bsen incor'porated :- ETRT 32V. Ri^tii ^t 3ra& ^r gjir •gi's.ff aisrar •HHM. wf-n - £Tra 32-Tr ^ '?a-B® (??) 4 f^ft STT^T Z^ TcfiRFT f^T c^ (f f&^ i^ 3{^ ^te^ fcf uiFT TC wss f^ciN^r grratTT , d?r fcrf?<i^ 'c^ ??, W R^cti ^t ara^ 'ci?)' CCT qr 'cF? 3) From bare reading of the aboye provision, it is evident that any order passed under Section 32 (C) by the Election Commission imposing disqualification for failure to lodge occount of election expenses can be re- considered by the State Election Commission on sufficient grounds. Undisputedly, petitioner made representation invoking the above proyision for re-consideration, but, unfortunately, though there was recommendation of the Collector supporting her representation, State Election Commission padma without assigning any reason, rejected the same; by passing a non-speaking order and that order hos not been challer^ed before this Court. 4) Once the petitioner raised her grievonces (yainst Annexure P/l before the State Election Commission for settir^ aside her disqualification and the Commission decided her repr-esentation, she has only rsmedy ieft out either to challerge the subsequent order under Article 226 of the Constitution or to take other recourse in accor'dance with iaw. 5) So far os Annexure P/2 i.e. an order possed by the Chief Municipal Officer is concerned, admittedly he hos no such power to direct the Vice President to wor'k in ptace of President. It is pertinent to mention here that, Section 52 of the Act itself provides the duties of the Vice President, accordin9 to which Vice President is required to work. 6) In view of the above, so far as order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P/l) is concerned, that order can not be interfered With, but, Annexure P/2 dated 17.07.2006 i.e. an order passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Na9ar Panchayat, Abhcnpur, being without jurisdiction is liable to bequashed. 7) In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure -P/2) is quashed. Without expressing any opinion on Annexure P/l (Order dated 25.05.2006) or subsequent order passed by the State Election Commission on petitioner representation for settin9 aside the disqualification it is observed that if petitioner so advised, may chsllenge the order passed by the State Election Commission on her representation, in accordance wfith law by invoking appropriate jurisdiction and if remedy lies in fi!ing review, she may also fi!e the same before the State Election Commission. ,' c^i/_ i 1 V.K.Shrivastava f Judge