Case: LAXMIBAI Vs. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED &amp; ORS

3. The election of Gram Panchayat, Mugat, T aluk Mudkhed, District Nanded were held on 1 st November, 2015. The results were declared on 4 th November, 2015. The appellant was elected as a Member of Village Panchayat. The appellant was required to furnish election expenses within 30 days in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission in terms of Section 14B of the 1959 Act. The appellant submitted expenses with delay of 15 days. The appellant was served with a show cause notice on 3 rd March, 2016 as to why she should not be disqualified on account of failure to submit the election expenses. The appellant submitted her explanation that due to ill-health there was a delay of 15 days in furnishing of details of expenses and that delay may be condoned4. The Collector as a delegate of the State Election Commission passed an order dated 9 th August, 2018 disqualifying the appellant for a period of five years to be a member of Gram Panchayat only for the reason that the appellant has not submitted election expenses within time5. The appeal against such order was dismissed on 19 th November, 2018 by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad for the reason that the medical certificate is not issued by the Competent Authority. The said order was challenged before the Writ Court wherein the High Court held as under:5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered a copy of medical certificate on which petitioner had relied upon. The same is taken on record and marked X for identification. This document has no particulars whatsoever, such as name, diagnosis, date and reference number etc. There is nothing mentioned. This certificate issued by a private hospital bears only a stamp of the doctor. It is stated that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension, diabetes and was advised bed rest. This document, on the face of it, cannot be relied upon. If the authorities have not accepted such a document, there is no error in the view taken by them24. The elections of Panchayat Samiti, Village Mukti, T aluk and District Dhule, Maharashtra were held on 1 st December, 2013. The appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil contested the said elections. The results were declared on 2 nd December, 2013 and the appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil was not elected. The appellant was required to furnish election expenses within 30 days in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission in terms of Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 for short, 1961 Act. Since the appellant did not submit the account of election expenses within stipulated period, he was served with a show- cause notice on 21 st July, 2014 to explain as to why he should not be disqualified for next five years on account of his failure to submit the account of election expenses. The appellant did not submit any reply within the prescribed time i.e. within seven days but on 28 th August, 2014, he submitted his explanation that due to ill-health, he could not furnish the details of expenses. The Collector vide order dated 3 rd November, 2014 disqualified the appellant for contesting elections for a period of five years. An appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 18 th December, 201725. Meanwhile, the elections of Gram Panchayat, Village Mukti were notified. The appellant submitted his nomination on 21 st September, 2017 for the post of Sarpanch. Such nomination of the appellant was objected by Pradip Nimba Patil (Petitioner in W.P . No. 11929 of 2017 before the High Court) but was rejected by the Returning Officer on 25 th September, 2017. The appellant was declared elected to the post of Sarpanch. The Returning Officer held that the disqualification is applicable only for the elections of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti and not for the elections of Gram Panchayat. The order of the Returning Officer was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2017 and in Writ Petition No. 13711 of 201726. Writ Petition No. 3846 of 2018 was filed by the appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil challenging the order dated 18 th December, 2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner confirming the order dated 3 rd November, 2014 passed by the Collector to disqualify him for a period of five years on account of his failure to submit account of election expenses within the stipulated period. Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2017 was filed by Pradip Nimba Patil challenging the order dated 25 th September, 2017 passed by the Returning Officer whereby the objection raised by him to the nomination of appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil to the post of Sarpanch was rejected. Writ Petition No. 13711 of 2017 was filed by Ritesh Suresh Patil (appellant herein in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Diary No. 40018 of 2019) with a prayer to set aside the election of appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil, who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Village Mukti, on the ground that on the date of his nomination, he was disqualified from contesting the said election. A further prayer is also made by appellant Ritesh Suresh Patil to declare him elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Mukti by setting aside the election of Gulabrao Ananda Patil27. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gulabrao Ananda Patil. The writ petitions filed by Pradip Nimba Patil and Ritesh Suresh Patil were partly allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the objections raised by him while the relief claimed in the writ petition filed by Ritesh Suresh Patil to declare him elected as Sarpanch was not granted. Appellants Gulabrao Ananda Patil and Ritesh Suresh Patil are in appeal before this Court28. The argument of the appellant before the High Court was that the order dated 3 rd November, 2014 has been passed without considering the explanation of the appellant regarding his ill-health and that the order has been passed mechanically. The High Court found that admittedly the appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil has not submitted any account of election expenses incurred on the date of voting, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Collector disqualifying the appellant from contesting election for next five years.

Reasoning:
8. A bare perusal of Section 14B of the 1959 Act shows that the State Election Commission is to be satisfied as to whether a person has no good reason or justification for the failure to furnish account of election expenses. Secondly, in terms of sub-section (2), for the reasons to be recorded, the disqualification under sub-section (1) can be removed or the period of disqualification can be reduced9. The Collector passed an order on 9 th August, 2018 not accepting the explanation for the delayed submission of the election expenses. In appeal, learned Additional Divisional Commissioner found that the medical certificate is not issued by the Competent Authority and the matter has been verified by the Collector. The appellant has not submitted the election expenses within stipulated time, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Collector. The High Court in the writ petition found that the medical certificate has no particulars whatsoever such as name, diagnosis, date and reference number etc. The certificate is issued by a private hospital and bears only a stamp of doctor. Such document was not accepted as reasonable explanation for not submitting the election expenses within time. We find that the explanation in delayed submission of election expenses has not been accepted. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view than the view affirmed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant11. We do not find any merit in the argument that Section 14B of the 1959 Act is mandatory13. In the present case, there is no prohibitive or negative expressions used in Section 14B of the 1959 Act, as it empowers the Election Commission to pass a just order of disqualification. Such provision cannot be treated to be mandatory period of five years in view of plain language of the Statute20. The disqualification of a candidate for five years passed under Section 14B of the 1959 Act leads to disqualification for future election as well. Though, Section 14B of the 1959 Act empowers the Commission to disqualify a candidate for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the order, but to pass an order of disqualification for five years, which may disqualify him to contest the next elections as well requires to be supported by cogent reasons and not merely on the fact of not furnishing of election expenses. We find that the order of disqualification for a period of five years is without taking into consideration the extent of default committed by the appellant and that the will of people is being interfered with in the wholly perfunctory way. We find that such mechanical exercise of power without any adequate reasons, though required to be recorded, renders the order of disqualification for a period of five years as illegal and untenable. It is abdication of power which is coupled with a duty to impose just period of disqualification. Therefore, though the appellant could be disqualified for a period upto five years, but we find that such period of disqualification must be supported by tangible reasons lest it would border on being disproportionate31. Similar argument has been examined in an appeal preferred by Laxmi Bai. For the reasons recorded therein, we find that the order of disqualification for a period of five years is illegal and untenable and cannot be sustainedWe do not find any merit in the said argument. The election expenses are sought to maintain purity of election and to bring transparency in the process. The voters must know everything about his candidate during and post elections. Therefore, such judgment which deals with excise duty is not applicable to the facts of the present case35. The High Court followed its earlier judgment reported as Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2018 (4) Mh LJ 911, holding that the disqualification incurred by a candidate will entail disqualification to contest an election under 1959 Act in terms of Section 13 of the said Act. Since the appellant has been disqualified under the provisions of 1961 Act, therefore, such disqualification is a disqualification for the purposes of the elections under 1959 Act as well. Therefore, the appellant could not contest elections for Gram Panchayat having been disqualified for a period of five years under the 1961 Act. We see no reason to disagree with the findings of the High Court in this respect43. Section 10A of the 1959 Act and Section 9A of the 1961 Act read with Articles 243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with Article 324 ofthe Constitution of India. In view of the judgments referred, we find that the remedy of an aggrieved person accepting or rejecting nomination of a candidate is by way of an election petition in view of the bar created under Section 15A of the 1959 Act. The said Act is a complete code providing machinery for redressal to the grievances pertaining to election as contained in Section 15 of the 1959 Act. The High Court though exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available and more so exercise restraint in terms of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. It is a prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court not to interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration of the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy contemplated by the statute. In view of the above, the writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court. However, the order of the High Court that the appellant has not furnished the election expenses incurred on the date of election does not warrant any interference.