Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.07.2014 passed by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter called as ‘The Commission’) and seeks direction to set aside the impugned order to the extent of holding that the petitioner has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within time and in the manner required as per The Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’).

2. Also seeks direction to quash and set aside the consequential order to issue show cause notice under Rule 89(5) of the Rules.

3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that seven advertisements dated 05.10.2009, 12.06.2009, 07.10.2009 and 25.10.2009 were published in different Newspapers during the ‘Assembly Election’ of the State of Maharashtra. The allegations are that the petitioner did not disclose the expenditure incurred on the aforementioned advertisements within time and manner prescribed in the Act. The total pro-rata expenditure on the alleged advertisements which can be attributed to the share of the petitioner was Rs.16,924/-. The permissible limit set-out as per Rule 90 of the 1961 Rules is Rs.10,00,000/-. Whereas, as per expenditure return filed by the petitioner, he had spent total amount of Rs.6,85,192/- on his Assembly Election.

4. Learned senior counsel submitted that for the sake of arguments, though not admitted, if the aforesaid pro-rata expenditure of Rs.16,924/- spent on all the advertisements mentioned above is added in his election expenditure incurred, i.e., Rs.6,85,192/-, then also his expenses are within the permissible limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Mr. Sibal further submitted that the petitioner was the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra during relevant period. He contested Assembly Election from ‘85 Bhokar Legislative Assembly Constituency’ from Indian National Congress and declared elected. Thereafter, the opponent losing candidate, i.e., Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar, the respondent No.1 herein, filed a complaint before the Election Commission of India. He submitted that the petitioner, thereafter, resigned from the said Constituency and contested the Parliamentary Election from ‘Nanded’ and elected as a Member of Parliament.

6. Mr. Sibal has referred to an advertisement at page 587, annexure P-14 (colly.), showing photographs of seven other leaders of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) including deceased father of the petitioner. In the said advertisement, the meeting was to be held on 05.10.2009, however, the same was postponed to 06.10.2009. Accordingly, a similar advertisement showing the meeting to be held on 06.10.2009 was published, which is at page 589. The said advertisement depicts UPA Chairman Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, the President of National Congress Party, Mr. Sharad Pawar and the other prominent leaders of ‘United Progressive Alliance’. The said meeting was attended by the petitioner and his proportionate share of expenditure incurred on the said meeting was disclosed by petitioner in his account in the Statutory Register provided by the Commission.

7. Mr. Sibal further referred to an advertisement at page 591, wherein all leaders have been shown as were shown in the advertisement mentioned at page 587 except depicting Central Minister Mr. Jyotiraditya Sindhia in place of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. The advertisement at page 593 shows photograph of Salman Khan, a ‘Bolywood Star’ in place of the aforesaid Central Minister alongwith all other leaders as mentioned above.

8. Learned senior counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisements shown at pages 587 and 589, and submitted that these advertisements were published by Mr. Amar Rajurkar, Secretary, Maharashtra State Congress Committee and the advertisement at page 591, was published by Mr. Ajay Bhisen, President, Nanded