Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
SHAIKH NISAR IBRAHIM - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10317 of 2018, 10494 of 2018
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Village Panchayat Act - Sections 14B,14B(1)(b) - Limitation Act – Section 5 - Bombay Municipal Corporation Act - Section 18A - City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 - Section 9B(4) - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Section 14(4) - Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Section 10A(4) - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 243-K and 243-ZA - Petitioners are aggrieved by orders passed by District Collector Aurangabad by which, these petitioners have been disqualified for five years on account of having failed to submit their accounts of election expenses within 30 days from date of declaration of election results - They are also aggrieved by orders of the Divisional Commissioner rejecting their Appeals - By such common orders, 2006 candidates out of 2996, have been unseated and disqualified for five years, in nine talukas from Aurangabad district - Both petitioners received notices from District Collector calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified on account of failing to tender their accounts - Second petitioner submitted that she was ignorant of any such Rule and was not aware that she is required to file such accounts though she was elected unopposed - It is further submitted that as both have been elected by Rule of Majority they should not be disqualified on account of a lapse which was due to lack of awareness about any provision mandating submission of accounts of election expenses. Nevertheless 1st petitioner claims that he had submitted his accounts within 30 days to returning officer who neither confirms nor denies same - Whether thirty days are over and have issued orders of disqualification as like in these cases even if the delay is of a day or two days or a little more - Whether a minor delay in filing accounts of election expenses could be condoned under Section 14B (1)(b) of Village Panchayat Act, akin to Section 5 of Limitation Act - Whether delay is of such magnitude that it cannot be condoned - Whether the delay was of such a magnitude so as to unseat an elected candidate - Whether or not to apply same standard in applying the "sufficient cause" test to all litigants regardless of their personality in said contest. – Whether length of the delay is such that such a petitioner could be made to suffer such a harsh consequence - Held, Court view Section 14B(1)(b) vests discretion in the authority of the District Collector or the Divisional Commissioner, akin to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to consider as to whether the delay is of such magnitude that it cannot be condoned. While considering such period of delay, the underlying principle is of there being a sufficient cause or ground so as to accept the explanation for the delay. As such, in some cases the delay could be extremely minor as like in these two cases wherein the delay is of two days and sixteen days - Though the message needs to go out loud and clear that accounts of election expenses have to be tendered in proper format, the explanation put forth needs to be considered since disqualification would lead to ousting of a democratically elected person and placing additional financial burden on government for conducting fresh elections to posts that have fallen vacant due to orders of disqualification under Section 14B - Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis - Concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the concept of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play - There is always a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of a short duration or few days for to former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to latter it may not be attracted - Therefore, case of inordinate delay would warrant a strict scrutiny and if the delay is very short or minor, would call for a liberal delineation. I find that these conclusions of Honourable Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra), would be squarely applicable to this case - In Court view said delay is not inordinate so as to conclude that explanation given by petitioner that he has submitted his expenses and had then submitted an affidavit in support thereof belatedly by two days would be sufficient to disqualify him - Petitions allowed
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
The common issue raised in these petitions is as to whether, a minor delay in filing the accounts of election expenses, could be condoned under Section 14B (1)(b) of the Village Panchayat Act, akin to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. In both these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the District Collector, Aurangabad, dated 23/02/2016, by which, these petitioners have been disqualified for five years on account of having failed to submit their accounts of election expenses within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the election results. They are also aggrieved by the orders of the Divisional Commissioner rejecting their Appeals. By such common orders, 2006 candidates out of 2996, have been unseated and disqualified for five years, in nine talukas from the Aurangabad district.
3. The learned Advocates for the petitioners jointly submit that these petitioners are working at grass-root levels and are not conversant with the law of submission of accounts of election expenses. Both the petitioners, who are elected as Members of the Gram Panchayat, were unaware as regards the submission of election expenses. The first petitioner was elected in August 2015 and has submitted his accounts on the 33rd day, whereas, the petitioner in the second petition, who was elected unopposed, has submitted her accounts after gathering knowledge from the Talathi, on the 46th day from the date of her election.
4. Both the petitioners received notices from the District Collector, calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified on account of failing to tender their accounts. The second petitioner submitted that she was ignorant of any such Rule and was not aware that she is required to file such accounts, though she was elected unopposed. It is further submitted that as both have been elected by the Rule of Majority, they should not be disqualified on account of a lapse, which was due to lack of awareness about any provision mandating submission of the accounts of election expenses. Nevertheless, the 1st petitioner claims that he had submitted his accounts within 30 days to the returning officer Shri Mamidwar, who neither confirms nor denies the same.
5. The learned AGP submits that Section 14B only speaks of submission of such accounts. It does not prescribe the period within which such expenses are to be submitted. A Gazette dated 19/11/2010 was introduced, after Section 14B was brought into the effect by the amendment Act - Maharashtra XVI of 2010 on 06/05/2010, prescribing the period of 30 days for submission of accounts of election expenses, from the date of the election results.
6. Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act reads as under:-
"Disqualification by State Election Commission : (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person-
(a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission, and
(b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be disqualified for being a member of Panchayat or for contesting an election for being a member for a period of five years from the date of this order.
(2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification."
7. It is thus evident that though a candidate may have failed to lodge his accounts, the State Election Commission or any such authority authorized in this behalf by the Commissioner, can assess the reason put forth for explaining such delay. If the said authority or the Commission, as the case may be, is convinced of the reasons assigned, it could remove any such disqualification or reduce the period of such disqualification.
8. The issue as regards a 'no good rea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
