The right to contest an election and to challenge the same is purely a statutory right and not a common law right. Establishing legal injury and locus standi is crucial in challenging election-related orders.

1. These writ petitions can be conveniently decided by this common judgment in view of similarity of issues raised therein.

2. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order passed by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra-respondent No.2 thereby setting aside the order of disqualification of the returned candidates under the provisions of Section 10(1E) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short 'the said Act'). Besides aforesaid challenge, the petitioner in all these writ petitions, is also seeking a declaration that after holding the respondent No.5 to be disqualified, the respondent No.6 be declared to be elected as a Councillor.

4. General elections to elect the Councillors at the Amravati Municipal Corporation were held in the month of February 2012. The results of said elections were declared on 17/02/2012. It was incumbent upon the candidates to submit the account of election expenses within a period of thirty days from the declaration of said results. As various candidates failed to submit account of election expenses within the stipulated time, proceedings for their disqualification were initiated by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. Accordingly, for failure to submit account of expenses, various returned candidates were held disqualified under the provisions of the said Act. The returned candidates who were so disqualified had initially approached this Court by filing various writ petitions but the same were permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternate remedy. Accordingly the returned candidates approached the said Election Commission under the provisions of Section 10(1F) of the said Act for setting aside their disqualification. By the impugned orders, the State Election Commission allowed the applications preferred by the returned candidates and set aside the orders of disqualification that were passed by the Additional Commissioner. These orders passed by the State Election Commission are under challenge in these writ petitions.

5. Shri P. S. Wathore, learned counsel for the petitioner in each writ petition submitted that the State Election Commission was not justified in setting aside the order of disqualification. He submitted that the Divisional Commissioner had rightly found that the returned candidates had not submitted the account of expenses within the stipulated time and hence had disqualified the said candidates. Though the returned candidates had taken a stand that they had submitted the account of expenses, there was no acknowledgment or seal of the Municipal Corporation to indicate that such accounts had been submitted in the office of the Municipal Corporation. No records were available with the Municipal Corporation. He therefore submitted that in absence of any proper proof that the returned candidates had submitted an account of expenses, their case could not have been believed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Punjab And Haryana High Court in case of Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. AIR 1992 Punjab And Haryana 183 in that regard. He therefore urged that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

6. Shri M. G. Bhangde, learned senior counsel for the returned candidates raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of writ petitions on the ground that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the orders passed by the State Election Commission. It was submitted that the petitioner had not contested election from the Wards from where the returned candidates were elected. It was submitted that challenge to an election could only be by initiating proceedings as prescribed by law and there was no right whatsoever with the petitioner to challenge the election of the returned candidates as the petitioner had not contested the election from the concerned Ward. In that