HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 20.7.2017 in W.P. No.20968/2016, whereby the challenge to an order passed by the State Election Commission (for short “the Commission”) on 21.11.2016, disqualifying the appellant to contest the election for five years under Section 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short the Act), remained unsuccessful.

2. The appellant contested the election to the office of President, Municipal Council Jaitwara for which polling was held on 2.12.2014. In the said election, the appellant was declared as a returned candidate on 7.12.2014. The appellant filed the election expenses within time granted. The appellant was served with a notice dated 17.3.2015 on the ground that the Part I and II, of the expenses book, and Annexure 1 to 9 of the election expenses furnished after the poll are incomplete and to explain as to why the expenses were not done through the bank account. The reply of the appellant is that he be given time for completion of the incomplete document but, in respect of expenses through bank, the assertion of the appellant was that he has incurred the election expenses from the money lying in the house for which expenses has been accounted for. It is in pursuance of such show cause notice, an order was passed on 21.11.2016 published in the official Gazette dated 22.12.2016 that since the appellant has not spent the amount through bank nor opened the bank account, therefore, he has violated the directions of the Election Commission. Therefore, in terms of Section 32-C of the Act, he was disqualified from being elected as Municipal Councilor and President for a period of five years from the date of the said order.

3. Challenge to such order before the learned Single Judge has remained unsuccessful. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Vs. M.P. State Election Commission and others reported as 2005 (1) MPLJ 245 and Jawaharlal Gupta Vs. Rajya Nirvachan Ayog, Bhopal reported as 2003 (1) MPLJ 180. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Commission relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and others reported as (2014) 7 SCC 99. After considering the contentions and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the order in appeal are reproduced as under:-

“Para 14.........

14.2 If the provision contained in Section 32-A(3) are read in conjunction with that of article 243 Z A as reproduced supra, it is crystal clear that the State Election Commission can provide all the necessary particulars for maintaining accounts of expenditure by passing necessary directions in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction for conduct of free, fair and impartial election to any office in a Municipality including that of the President.

14.3 Having interpreted the contents of Section 32-A (3) in the manner as explained supra there is no scintilla of doubt that the Order of 2014 issued by the Commission can very well provide the manner in which the accounts are maintained as regards receipt and expenditure during election. The provision of maintaining a bank account which though does not expressly find place in Section 32-A of the 1961 Act but the same has to be understood to be prescribed by way of the 2014 Order issued by the Commission in exercise of its powers u/S 32-A (3) of 1961 Act.

15. Analyzed in the above said manner, it becomes crystal clear that opening of a bank account for maintaining the pecuniary transactions during election to the office of President squarely falls within the expression 'manner prescribed' used in Section 32-C (A) of the 1961 Act, thereby rendering the petitioner liable to penal action under Section 32-C (B) of disqualification due to failure to do so.”

4. When the matter came up for