Timely submission of election expense accounts is essential for candidacy under electoral laws, with specified consequences for non-compliance.

O R D E R :

Heard Sri.Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj for respondent No.1, Sri.G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.P.Sudheer Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

02. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Order No.678/TSEC-Admin/NML-Narsapur-G/2020 (15) dated 06.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 through which the petitioner was disqualified to contest in any election to be held under the provisions of Telangana Panchayath Raj Act, 2018 (for short ‘the Act, 2018’) for a period of three years from the date of said order. The said order was issued in exercise of power under Section 23 of the Act, 2018 and Rule 106 (3) and 106 (7) of the Telangana Panchayath Raj (Conducting of Elections) Rules, 2018, (for short ‘the Rules, 2018’).

03. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein contested for the post of Surpanch of Rampur Grampanchayath, Narsapur Mandal, Nirmal District in the elections that were held on 25-01-2019 and results were declared on the same day and the petitioner lost the election. Through the impugned order the petitioner is disqualified from contesting any election under the Act, 2018 on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply the obligations cast upon him in terms of Section 238 of the Act, i.e., he failed to submit his account of Election Expenses, as required under the said provision. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not submitted his account of Election Expenses within the stipulated period under Section 238 of the Act, 2018. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, it is contended that because of the health reasons, the petitioner could not submit his account of Election Expenses in the prescribed proforma within 45 days. It is also an admitted fact that a Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of September, 2020 and the petitioner also admitted to have received the said Show-cause notice issued by the second respondent and submitted his explanation explaining the reason for failure to submit his account of Election Expenses.

04. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned Order came to be passed mechanically without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the same was issued in violation of the procedure established under the Act, 2018 and the impugned Order is issued after inordinate delay and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17075 of 2018 and batch, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.120 of 2020 , and contended that the said Judgment applies to the case of the petitioner herein.

05. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri.G.Vidyasagar, contended that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation by saying that because of health reasons, he could not submit his account of Election Expenses within time, but the petitioner failed to substantiate the same by producing relevant record to show that the petitioner was suffering from health issues at the relevant. In the absence of any material in support of the alleged health issues of the petitioner, explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory and the same was considered by the respondent No.2 while passing impugned Order. He further contended that a duty is cast upon the every contesting candidate in terms of Section 238 of the Act, 2018 to submit their return of election expenses and the same is a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply the said requirement would follow the consequences as provided under the Act, 2018 and the Rules made thereunder. Thus submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal.

06. Sri.G.Narender Reddy, learned Sta