HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR gCHHATTISGARH) Wrif Pe+i'rion No.353 of 2004 Sm 'l'. Pushpa Devi - Versus - Chha‘rfisgar-h S+a+e Elecfion Commission & ofhers POST FOR ORDER ONJM'SEPTEMBER‘ 2004 W/M/// ’ sdl- . 1 LCBHADOO ’ } Judge HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR LCHHATTISGARH) Wri? P¢+i+ion No.353 of 2004 Smf. Pushpa Devi - Versus - Chhaf'risgar'h Sm'l’e Bed-ion Commission & ofher-s Presem': - Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advoca're: For The pe+i+ioner. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Dy. Adv. General: For respondenf Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocafe: For responder” Na.4. Mr. Rm‘eev Shrivas‘rava, Advocafe: For fhe infervener. Mr. P. Tirky, Deputy Elec‘l'ion Officer is present ORDER (Passed on ,i M ‘ September, 2004) L.C. BHADOQ J. By +hi5 wrif pe+i+ion, filed under Ar'l'icles 226/227 of 'H-Ie Consfiiu'rion of India, the pefi‘rioner has questioned The legalify, proprieiy and correctness of The order daTed 27—1-2004 passed by ‘rhe Sfa‘re Elec+ion Commission whereby fhe pe'iifioner has been disqualified 1'0 oonfinue as Chairman of Nugar Paiik Parishod, Akal‘iom for no’r iodging The ‘accounf of eiecfion expenses as per The provisions of Section 32-B of fhe M.Pi Municipaii'l'ies Acf, 1961 (hereinnf‘rer referred fa as ‘Acf'). (2) Briefly sfa‘ied, focfs leading To filing of This wrif pefi'i'ion are fha‘i 'l'he pe‘i‘i‘i‘ioner herein confesfed fhe eiecfion for ‘i‘he posf of President Nogar Ponchoyaf, Akalmra in The monTh of December, 1999 and on 27-12- 99 she was duly elecTed in ThaT elecTion. As per fhe provisions of SecTion 32-3 of The AcT, 1961 The peTiTioner was required To furnish Theoccounf of elecTion expenses wiThin 30 days from The daTe of declaroTion of The resulT l of eiec'l'ion. As fhe pe'ri‘rioner failed +0 lodge fhe expendi‘rur-e account accordingly, fhe Sm‘l'e Elecfion Commission by exercising The powers under Secfion 32-6 of fhe Ac‘r passed ‘rhe impugned order declaring The petitioner disqualified 1’0 confinue on +l1e said post (3) The pefifioner's case is Thar she was declared elecTed on 27-12-99. She had lodged The accoun'r of elecfion expenses on 4-1-2000 wi'rhin 30 days from The date of declaraTion of fhe resuh‘. Copy of The receip‘r is Annexure-P/4. One Imran Khan, who is fhe Vice Presiden‘r of The said Nagar Panchaya‘l', Akal'i'ara, belonging 1'0 Bharfiya Jana'i'a Par‘l’y s'l'ar‘red filing false complainfs againsT The peTiTioner wiTh an uITerior moTive To remove-her from The Office of The PresidenT. Even he filed a wriT peTiTion No.969/2002 (Imran Khan V. STaTe of ChhaTTisgarh & OThers) on The ground ThaT The peTiTioner had noT filed accounT of The elec'lion expenses. r On 17-4-2000, The DisTricT EIecTion Officer, Janjgir-Champa issued show cause noTice To The peTiTioner for showing The receipT of lodging The accounT of elecTion expenses by 20“ April 2000. On 20% April 2000, The peTiTioner appeared and filed reply wiTh The receipT of lodging The accounT of elecTion expenses. On 22-4-2000, she filed The original receipT of accounT.of elecTion expenses. The DisTricT ElecTion Officer again on 27—4-2000 issued show cause noTice To The peTiTioner for again furnishing original receipT along wiTh second copy of accounT of elecTion expenses. Again The peTiTioner appear-ed on 1—5-2000 and submiTTed The receipT in ‘Two seTs wiTh mark of receipT on The show cause noTice iTself. On 3-5-2000, The DisTricT ElecTion Officer again asked The peTiTioner To furnish The deTails of accounT of elecTion expenses in Proforma A, B and C wiThin 3 days. The peTiTioner appeared and showed her relevanT documenTs. ThereafTer, on 23-6-2000 The STaTe EIecTion Commission issued show cause no‘l'ice To The peTiTioner To file The accounT of elecTion ‘ expenses wiThin 15 days. The peTiTioner replied To The show cause noTice on 13-7-2000. \ (4) On 13—11—2000, 'Hne Dis'rricf Elec'rion Officer issued memo of appearance 1'0 The pe‘rifioner 1'0 appear on 4-12-2000 a‘r 4 pm before fhe Sfa're Elecfion Commission of M. P., Bhopal. The pe‘ri-rioner appeared before +he said Eiec+ion Commission, whereas, reply ef +he responden'rs is fhm‘ The pe‘rifioner failed To furnish The s‘rafemem‘ of accoun‘r regarding expendifure incurred by her as per the provisions of Section 32-3 of ihe Act Even she was asked To give The name of The person before whom she N submiTTed The accounTs and ThaT is why on 17-4-2000 a wireless informaTion was senT To The peTiTioner To submi‘l’ The receipT of elec'l'ion “31$: expenses by 20-4-2000 by 2 pm. On 27-4-2000, The DepuTy ElecTion Officer issued a noTice To The peTiTioner menTioning Therein ThaT The receipT of accounTs of elecTion expenses submiTTed by The peTiTioner is no? clear as To before which officer The accounTs of elecTion expenses have been submiTTed. The signaTure on The receipT is noT clear. The peTiTioner l was furTher direcTed To come wiTh The original copy of receipT along wiTh The second copy of The accounTs of elecTion expenses in The office of DepuTy ElecTion Officer on 1-5-2000 aT 11 om, buT The peTiTioner ins‘i'ead of complying wiTh The direcTions only wroTe ThaT The deTails of accounTs expenses have been given on 4-1-2000 and 20-4—2000 in The office of The CollecTor while signing The receipT of The leTTer. (5) Again a memo was issued on 3-5-2000 ThaT The receipT of accounTs submiTTed by The peTiTioner is noT accepTable, as The same is noT received by The prescribed officer. The peTiTioner was furTher insTrucTed To send The documenTs as per The memo wiThin 3 days, copy of memo is Annexure-R/4, buT The some was never complied by The peTiTioner. The DisTricT ReTurning Officer senT a reporT To SecreTary, 5TaTe ElecTion Commission, Bhopal on 19-5-2000 in which iT was menTioned ThaT The peTiTioner has faiied To submiT her accounTs of elecTion expenses as per The provisions of SecTion 32-8 of The AcT, Therefore, iT is requesTe'd ThaT The peTiTionmay be dismissed. (6) I have heard learned counsel for The parTies. re. § (7) Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for The pefi‘rioner, while arguing Iaid much emphasis on Annexure—P/4, Which is Xerox copy of The Ie1'1'er addressed “r0 The Districf Eiec‘rion Officer, which reads like fhis: “To, The Disfricf Eiec‘rion Officer, Janjgir (Champa). Sub. Regarding submission of ‘rhe accounts of election expenses. \ Sir, The defails of fhe expenses incurred by me during Nagar- Panchayaf Elec’rion, Akal‘rara, in prescribed proforma, are submif‘l'ed for necessary acrion. ~6§é ‘ Thank You Fail'hfully Sdl- i DaTed: 4.1.2000 (SmfPushpadevi Soni) AkaHam" He submiTTed The? The accounfs of fhe elecfion expenses were ubmi'rl'ed along wiTh This le‘rfer. He fur‘rher submi‘H'ed thaf all ‘l’he original accoum‘ was submi‘r’red. Even The copies of fhose documents were nof kepf by +he pe'ri‘i'ioner wi'rh her, Therefore, The peTiTioner had already meT wiTh he requiremenT of The provisions of SecTion 32-3 of The AcT. (8) On The oTher hand, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 argued ThaT The peTiTioner had never furnished The accounTs of The eIecTion expenses incurred by her during The Nagar PanchayaT ElecTion. They furTher argued ThaT as per The provisions of M.P. MunicipaliTies AcT, 1961 The peTiTioner was required To furnish True copy of The accounT To respondenT No.2 and The peTiTioner oughT To have kepT wiTh herself The original accounTs. On demand she oughT To have produced Those documenTs, when The show cause noTice was issued by respondenT No.1 and 2, buT she s T (‘3 failed 1’0 produce any document even when if was asked from her fha‘r she should disclose The name of The officer before whom she presenfed fhe account, she was no? able f0 Tell The name of fha‘r officer. The impugned order has been passed cor-recfly by respondenf No.1, fherefore, fhe pe‘ri‘rion be dismissed. (9) In 'l'his background of confroversy if we look info The relevanf provisions of The Acf, Secfion SZ-A of The Acf envisages fhaf “every oandidafe a‘t an elec‘i'ion of Presidenf shall, ei‘rher by himself or by his elecfion agen‘i', keep a separafe and correcf accoun‘l' of all expendifure in connection wifh The eIecTion incurred or aufhorized by him or by his elec‘i‘ion agen‘r befween fhe da‘re on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of fhe resulf fhereof, both days inclusive." Section 32- B envisages that “every contesting candidate at an election of President shall, wifhin thirty days from the dafe of election of the refurned candidate lodge with the officer notified by the State Election Commission an account of his election expenses which shall be a TRUE COPV OF THE ACCOUNT kept by him or by his election agent under Section 32-A." Section 32-C envisages the disqualification on failure to lodge account of election expenses. In this connection, an order was issued by the Government of MP. in the year 1997 i.e. Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 under the enabling provisions of Sections 14-A of the MP. Municipal Corporation Act, and 32-A of the MP. Municipalities Act, 1961. Para—3 of the said order envisages that ‘how the particulars of account of election expenses to be maintained’. Para—4 deals with the maintenance of day-to-day account of election expenses. Para-5 deals with production of the record of day-to-day account election expenses for inspection. Para-6 envisages that 'soon after declaration of the result of election, every contesting candidate or his election agent shall also prepare an abstract statement of election expenses in Proforma B, clearly showing the total expenditure on various items listed therein.’ / / (10) Pam—7 deals wi+h lodging of 'Hne accoun+ of elecfion expenses wi‘rh The Districf Elecfion Officer wifhin 3O days which shad! comprise 'l'he following documenfs namely:- (a) fhe regis‘i'er of day +0 day accoun'i' of elec'i'ion expenses referred f0 in paragraph 4, in original, (b) vouchers reia‘i'ing To fhe enfries made in fhe regis‘rer of eiecTion expenses, and (c) absfrac‘r s'i'ai'emenf of eiecfion expenses, referred To in paragraph 6. These documenTs sha” be auThenTicaTed and counTersigned by The candidaTe in case They have been prepared and signed by his eiecTion agenT and The vouchers shaii also be counTersigned by him before being lodged. The accounT of elecTlon expenses shall be accompanied by an affidaviT of The candidaTe in Proforma C and shall noT be regarded as compleTe wiThouT such an affidavit (11) Therefore, as per The above order (1997), in The firsT insTance, The peTiTioner was required To mainTain accounTs as per The provisions of paras 3, 4, 5 & 6, and was required To lodge in compliance of para-7 of The order and for mainTenance of The accoum‘ Proforma A and B are prescribed, along wiTh' ThaT The peTiTioner was required To file an affidaviT in Proforma C. Clause 4 of para-7 specifically envisages ThaT wiThouT filing The affidaviT in Proforma C The accounT of elecTion expenses _ shall noT be regarded as compleTe wiThouT such an affidavit (12) The peTiTioner has nowhere sTaTed in her peTiTion ThaT The accounTs were mainTained in accordance wiTh The above provisions of The AcT and The Order (1997). In The firsT insTance, The peTiTioner was required To submiT True copy of The accounT as per SecTion 32-9 of The AcT, she was required To keep original wiTh her and she should have submiTTed These accounTs before The DisTricT ElecTian Officer. In pursuance of The show cause noTice Issued by The DisTrIcT Elec‘hon Officer and The STaTe ElecTion Commission she was requured To furnish True copies \3"? of fhe original accoun‘l's, which were required +0 be kep‘r wifh her and fhe pe'ri‘rioner has failed To prove fhis fact Even if we iook in‘ro Annexure-PM, fhe ini‘tiais, which are said To be of some employee of fhe Dis‘h‘icf Elec-rion Officer, are no'f clearly visible and no one can make oui’ from 'l’his +l1a'l’ which official of Disfricf Election Officer received The account even on noi’ice 1'0 her could explain Thai" fo whom she submif‘l'ed fhe accounfs. When The nofice was issued by fhe Disfricf Elecfion Officer 'I’o The pefifioner reques‘ring Tho? she should disclose The name of The officer before whom she presenTed The accoun'l's, buT she failed To disclose The name of ThaT person 'l'o whom she presenTed The accounTs. (13) SufficienT oppor'l'uniTy was granTed To The peTiTioner by The DisTricT ElecTion Officer and The STaTe ElecTion Commission To produce The copies of The accounTs, buT she failed To produce. Even during The course of hearing, whole record was summoned by The CourT and The same was perused. There was noThing on record which shows ThoT any accounT was furnished by The peTiTioner herein. There is noThing on record which goes To show ThaT The peTiTioner has been able To prove ThaT True copy of The expendiTure incurred by her during elecTion was submiTTecl To The prescribed auThoriTy in prescribed proforma, Therefore, The peTiTioner’s peTiTion is devoid of any force and meriT, as The peTiTioner has failed To prove and esTablish ThaT she in compliance wiTh The provisions of SecTion 32-3 of The ACT and The order (1997) submiTTed The accounTs of The elecTion expenses in proforma A a B and supporTed by The affidaviT in proforma C. (14) In The resulT, I am of The opinion ThaT This peTiTion is liable To be dismissed and iT is accordingly dismissed. L.c.BHADog Judge 8w. Barve i \