IN THE HIGH CQUqR/T OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH # BILASPUR W R No. 44% #1004 rETITIONER : APPLICANT , SMT. CHANDk DEVI SHARMA Aged 55 yaars, W/o‘ Shri Radhe Shyam Shanna; R/o. : Ganjpara g~ Durg (CG) 1 1V, x .g a Versus ‘13 RESPONDENT : NON-APPLICANT /(1) STATE OF CfH-IHATTISGARH, Through the SECRETARY Town Development & Environment, State of Chha’é’ti'sgarh, Mantralaya — Raipur (2) CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTION COMMSSION, I Mahanadi Khaind, Mantralaya Compound, ‘ Raipur (CG): ’ /" (3) , The (Local COLLECTOR Election), & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER i Distt. : Durg ’(Chhattisgarh) /, ~ 3 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION? O:F INDIA #wnu.-_...un HwW l PETITIONER APPLICANT RESPONDENTS ’ NON-APPLICANTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4466 OF 2004 Smt. Chanda Devi Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Harsh Wardhan & Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. $hri P.K.Bhaduri. Pane! Lawyer fort e State. Present :- 31/ q ORDER (Passed on this 07‘” day of December, 201 1) 1.. Challenge in this petitien is to the order dated 09!1Q‘“ Net/ember, 2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner was declared as disqualified for election to the post of Mayor and Member under the provisions of Section 14(C) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956’). 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the last date for filing of nomination for 29’“ papers. for the eteotions of Munioipa! Corporation was November, 2004. The petitioner. by the impugned order was declared as disqualified to contest the election of Mayor] Member for the period of tive from the date of the impugned order i.e. 99/19‘" November, yeare impugned 2004. 3. The petitioner contested the election of Mayor held sometime in December. 1999. which she lost. Thereafter. according to the petitioner. she furnished the account of election expenses. within a period of one month before the District Election Officer. 4, The petitioner without being informed about any deficiency in submission of account of erection expenses was informed just before the date of tiling of nomination paper for the next election to be held in December. 2004. that she had been declared as disqualitied for contest the election. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward her case and. as such. the same is void ab inilio ,g [\1 and deserves to be quashed for want of non-compliance of principla of natural iustice. The petition was admitted on 25‘“ November, 2994., but no response was med on behalf of the respondents ti" date. It is beneficial to refer the relevant provisions i.e. Section 14(C)‘ which reads as under : 14-6. Disqualification for failure to iodge acceunt 9f eiectien exgenses — I! the Siaie Eieciion Commission is saiisiied that a person- (a) has faiied to lodge an account ef eiection expenses within ihe time and iii the manner required by or under this Act; and (b) has no good reason orjusiificaiion for a failure, the State Eleciion Cemmission shay, by erder published in ihe Oiiicial Gazette, deciare him to be disqualmed and any such person shall be disdualiiied for being chesen as and for being a {Counciior or a Mayor] of ihe Corporation [for a“ period not exceeding iiile-yeais} from the dare of ihe order. The provisions of Section 14(6) contemplates an opportunity to be afforded to the person who could not tile an account of election expenses within the time and for the manner required by or under the Act. 1956. Sub section (b) clearly provides for explanation that there was a justification or good reason for a failure. In this case, nothing was examined particularly when the case of the petitioner is that the account of expenses was filed within time before passing the impugned order. Even, the impugned order was issued after a period of about 4 years 11 months. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 09i10‘“ November, 2004 (Annevnre P-1) is quashed. From other angle also. when the petitioner was declared as disqualified by the impugned order dated 09H 0‘" November, 2004, five years period have already elapsed. 10. Thus, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs./, Sd/- Satish K. Agnjhotri Judge ASHOK