Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 425 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Yadav v. Election Commission Of India

2000-03-15

S.N.JHA

body2000
Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of an order by which he has been disqualified from seeking election to either House of the Parliament or the State Legislature for a period of three years by the Election Commission of India under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Copy of the impugned order bearing No. 76/BR-LA/99 dated 7.12.99 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner filed his nomination papers on 21.1.95 for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1995 from Patna West Constitutency No. 206 as an independent candidate. His candidature was accepted and he was allotted symbol. He was supplied the statutory registers including register for maintaining the expenses by the office of the District Magistrate, Patna i.e. the Election Officer. 3. According to the petitioner on 6.3.95, he returned the registers to the Returning Officer intimating him that on account of financial problems he had decided to withdraw from the election, and he thus stopped canvassing for the votes. On 20.2.96 he received notice from the Election Commission of India dated 27.11.95 asking him to furnish the required details within 20 days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner sent application stating that he had dropped out of the election process. He received another notice dated 18.9.98 informing him that statement of expenses furnished by him was not in accordance with law. Vouchers, Forms l and II along with affidavit had not been submitted. On 12.10.98 the petitioner claims to have submitted the required documents containing the details of the expenses along with affidavit in the office of the Election Officer, Patna. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had duly complied with the notice, the impugned order has been arbitrarily passed which affects his fundamental right to contest election. 4. At this stage the relevant provisions may be noticed. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) provides that every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by 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. Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rules for short) specifies the particulars in respect of which the account of expenditure is to be maintained. Section 78 of the Act lays down that every contesting candidate at an election shall within 30 days from the date of election of the returned candidate lodge with the District Election Officer an account of his election expenses which shall be a true copy of the account kept by him or by his election agent under Section 77. Rule 89 of the said rules provides that the District Election officer shall submit a report, as soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified in Section 78, to the Election Commission giving details of the candidates contesting the election, mentioning whether the candidates have lodged his account of election expenses along with the dates of submission of the accounts along with information as to whether such accounts has been lodged within the time prescribed and in the manner required by the Act or the Rules. Rule 89 further provides for decision of the Election Commission on such report.I shall again refer to the relevant part of that rule later in this order. 5. Adverting to Rule 86 it would appear that the statement of account required to be maintained by the candidate or his election agent under Section 77 is to contain the following details: (a) the date on which the expenditure was incurred or authorised; (b) the nature of the expenditure (as for example, travelling, postage or printing and the like); (c) the amount of the expenditure- (i) the amount paid; (ii) the amount outstanding; (d) the date of payment; (e) the name and address of the payee; (f) the serial number of vouchers, in case of amount paid; (g) the serial number of bills if any, in case of amount outstanding; (h) the name and address of the person to whom the amount outstanding is payable. 6. The Rule further lays down that vouchers shall be obtained for every item of expenditure unless it is not practicable to do so such as in the case of expenditure incurred on postage, travelling by rail, etc. and the same shall be filed along with the account of election expenses arranged in seriatum. 7. 6. The Rule further lays down that vouchers shall be obtained for every item of expenditure unless it is not practicable to do so such as in the case of expenditure incurred on postage, travelling by rail, etc. and the same shall be filed along with the account of election expenses arranged in seriatum. 7. The petitioner has enclosed typed copy of the affidavit, marked Annexure 4/1, account of expenditures", marked Annexure 4/3 and photo copies of Forms I & II. In Annexure 4/3 he has mentioned the particulars of the expenditure said to have been incurred by him between 21.1.95 and 5.3.95. It is interesting to find that except sum of Rs. 250/- spent as nomination fee on 21.1.95, and sum of Rs. 16/- said to have been spent on cost of patrol, all other items of expenditure relate to breakfast and lunch expenses aggregating to Rs. 8,565. In form I all the columns are blank. Only a note has been made that the Expenses Register has been deposited. In form II again all columns have been cut except no.2 meant for the nomination fee and the cost of conveyance wherein sums of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 16/- respectively have been mentioned. A bare perusal of the Statement leaves no room for doubt that it is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 86 of the Rules. 8. Rule 89(4) provides that on receipt of the report (from the District Election Officer) under sub-section (1) the Election Commission shall consider the report and decide whether any contesting candidate has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required. Under sub-rule (5) of the said Rule, where the Election Commission decides that a contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of expenses within the time and in the manner required, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under Section 10A. Sub-rule (6) provides for filing show cause by the concerned candidate. Under sub-rule (8) the Election Commission takes final decision in the matter.Where the Commission is satisfied that the candidate had no good reason or justification for the failure to lodge his account, it shall declare him to be disqualified under Section 10A for a period of three years from the date of the order. 9. Under sub-rule (8) the Election Commission takes final decision in the matter.Where the Commission is satisfied that the candidate had no good reason or justification for the failure to lodge his account, it shall declare him to be disqualified under Section 10A for a period of three years from the date of the order. 9. In the present case, as noted above, on receipt of the report from the District Election Officer, the Election Commission served notice in terms of Rule 89(5) and thereafter took the impugned decision. There has been thus due compliance of the statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice. Section 10A provides that if the Election Commission is satisfied that the person has failed to lodge the account of expenses within the time or in the manner required by the Act, and had no good reason or justification for the failure, it shall declare him to be disqualified for a period of three years. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order. The writ petition is dismissed.