Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.R.Agnihotri and N.K.Sodhi JJ.
Chanan Singh Sidhu
Versus
Election Commission Of India, New Delhi
Civil Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1991,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 5, 1992
ELECTION - DISQUALIFICATION - LODGING OF ACCOUNT OF ELECTION EXPENSES - FAILURE TO LODGE ACCOUNT IN PRESCRIBED MANNER - DISQUALIFICATION UNDER S. 10A OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - WHETHER ELECTION COMMISSION REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION - WHETHER ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION ARBITRARY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner contested the 1989 Lok Sabha elections from Gurdaspur Parliamentary Constituency and lost. As per statutory provisions, he was required to keep a separate account of all election expenses incurred and lodge the same with the District Election Officer within 30 days of the declaration of the result. The petitioner failed to do so within the stipulated time and in the prescribed manner. The Election Commission, after issuing notices and providing opportunities to the petitioner to rectify the defects, disqualified him for three years under S. 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Finding of the Court:
1. The power conferred on the Election Commission under S. 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not a judicial or quasi-judicial power. It is an administrative power, and the rules of natural justice do not necessitate a proper inquiry, a reasonable opportunity, or a reasoned detailed order before disqualifying a candidate under S. 10A. 2. The disqualification under S. 10A is a necessary consequence flowing from the candidate's failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the stipulated period and in the prescribed manner. The Election Commission is not required to record separate reasons for the disqualification, as the reason is inbuilt in the order of disqualification itself. 3. The impugned order of the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner was not arbitrary. The petitioner had been repeatedly asked to lodge the return of his election expenses in the prescribed manner, but he failed to comply. The Election Commission had sent notices to the petitioner's given address, and there was no evidence that he had informed the Commission of any change in his postal address.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission is required to record reasons for disqualifying a candidate under S. 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Whether the impugned order of the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the Election Commission under S. 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is an administrative power, and the rules of natural justice do not necessitate a proper inquiry, a reasonable opportunity, or a reasoned detailed order before disqualifying a candidate under S. 10A. 2. The disqualification under S. 10A is a necessary consequence flowing from the candidate's failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the stipulated period and in the prescribed manner. The Election Commission is not required to record separate reasons for the disqualification, as the reason is inbuilt in the order of disqualification itself. 3. The impugned order of the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner was not arbitrary. The petitioner had been repeatedly asked to lodge the return of his election expenses in the prescribed manner, but he failed to comply. The Election Commission had sent notices to the petitioner's given address, and there was no evidence that he had informed the Commission of any change in his postal address.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order passed by the court allowing the petitioner to file his nomination papers for the upcoming elections was revoked.
M.R.AGNIHOTRI, J.
1. In November, 1989, general elections to Lok Sabha were held and from 1 Gurdaspur Parliamentary Constituency Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu also contested. On 28/11/1989, the result was declared, but the petitioner lost the election. Still, according to the statutory provisions contained in Ss. 77 and 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), he was required to keep a separate account of all the expenditure incurred by him in connection with the election between the date on which he was nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, and to lodge the same with the District Election Officer within thirty days of the date of declaration of the result, that is, by 28/12/1989. This account is required to be lodged along with necessary details and supporting documents, that is, vouchers etc. as prescribed under Rules 86(1) and 86(3) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The relevant statutory provisions as contained in the Act and the Rules are reproduced below for facility of reference. Representation of the People Act, 1951
"77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof.--- (1) Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.
Explanation 1 --- Notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of any court to the contrary, any expenditure incurred or authorized in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be, and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section : Provided that nothing contained in this Explanation shall affect -
(a) any judgment, order or decision of the Supreme Court whereby the election of a candidate to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (Ord. 13 of 1974);
(b) any judgment, order or decision of a High Court whereby the election of any such candidate has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the said Ordinance if no appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against such judgment, order or decision of the High Court before such commencement and the period of limitation for filing such appeal has expired before such commencement.
xx xx xx xx xx xx Explanation 3.-- For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilities provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of S. 123 in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section.
(2)The account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. (3)The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.
78. Lodging of account with the district election officer. - (1) Every contesting candidate at an election shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate or, if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates, lodge with the district election officer an accoun
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
