ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. This order will decide Writ Petition No. 2202/04 (Shri Mahendra Palariya vs. M.P. State Election Commission and others), Writ petition No. 3852/04 (Smt. Seema Katakwar vs. State of M.P. and others and Writ petition No. 4040/04 (Smt. Neelam Pravin Gandhi vs. The State Election Commission and others) as common questions of law are involved in these cases. In W.P. No. 2202/04, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- I. To requisition the complete Record pertaining to issuance of impugned Gazette Notification published in M. P Gazette on 2-4-2004/Annexure P-1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. II. To set aside/annul the order/notification dated 18-3-2004 (Annexure P-1) published in M.P Gazette dated 2-4-2004 to the extent petitioner is concerned. II(a) To set aside/annul the order dated 7-6-2004/Annexure P/6/6(a) and hold it as mala fide and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. III. To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. IV. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. Petitioner successfully contested the election of President, Nagar Panchayat, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh. Annexure P/1 relates to gazette notification dated 18-3-2004 published in M.P Gazette dated 2-4-2004 by which petitioner along with 25 persons has been declared disqualified u/s 32-C of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Order (Annexure P/6/6(a) dated 7-6-2004 is in respect of appointment of respondent No. 5 Kashiram Ahirwar as President. Nagar Panchayat, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh because of the disqualification of the petitioner by notification Annexure P/1. In W.P. No. 3852/04 (Smt. Seema Katakwar vs. State of M.P. and others), petitioner has sought, following reliefs:- 8.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to send for entire records pertaining to facts and circumstances of the instant Writ petition. 2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the impugned gazette notification dated 28-5-2004, bearing No. F-67-13-2003-III-393 is arbitrary capricious illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned gazette notification dated 28-5-2004, bearing No. F-67-13-2003-III-393 in the interest of justice. 4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order, direction or writ deems fit and proper to the facts and circumstance of the instant petition. 3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned gazette notification dated 28-5-2004, bearing No. F-67-13-2003-III-393 in the interest of justice. 4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order, direction or writ deems fit and proper to the facts and circumstance of the instant petition. 5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner was elected as President of Municipal Council, Piparia, District Hoshangabad. Gazette Notification dated 28-5-2004 has been placed on record as Annexure P/7 by which petitioner has been declared disqualified u/s 32-C of the Municipalities Act, 1961 for being chosen and as for being a member of the Municipal Council for a period of five years from the date of the order along with one Ms. Vimla Khiladilal Paliwal. In W.P. No. 4040/04 (Smt. Neelam Pravin Gandhi vs. State Election Commission and others), petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) The relevant record from the office of District Election Officer Hoshangahad and from State Election Commission may be called for perusal and reference by this Hon'ble Court, (ii) A writ in nature of 'certiorari' may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order of Election Commission dated 1-10-2004, published in M.P. Gazette Part-I dated 10-9-2004 (Ann. P/VI) so far as it relates to the petitioner; (iii) A writ in nature of 'certiorari' may kindly be issued quashing the impugned consequential order dated 1-10-2004 (Ann.P-VII) passed by the respondent No. 3 ab-initio'; (iv) Any other appropriate writ or direction may also kindly be issued if warranted in circumstances of this case. (v) Costs may also kindly be awarded. Petitioner contested election of President, Municipal Council, Itarsi, result of which was declared on 28-12-1999. In this petition, Annexure P/6 is gazette notification dated 1-9-2004 published in M.P. Gazette dated 10-9-2004 by which petitioner Smt. Neelam Pravin Gandhi and other five persons were declared disqualified u/s 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 for being chosen and as for being a Member of the Municipal Council. All the cases are being decided on a common question of law. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 2202/04 for convenience. Petitioner successfully contested the election of President, Nagar Panchayat, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh held on 28-12-1999. All the cases are being decided on a common question of law. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 2202/04 for convenience. Petitioner successfully contested the election of President, Nagar Panchayat, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh held on 28-12-1999. Petitioner did not submit any account of election expenses to the District Election Officer as required u/s 32-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. A show cause notice (Annexure R/2) dated 7-3-2000 was issued to the petitioner in this regard why he should not be disqualified for a period of five years to contest the election for non-lodging of the account of election expenses. The petitioner submitted reply to this notice by Annexure R/3. In the reply he shown that there was an election expenditure of Rs. 2,650/-. The details of expenditure were shown by him in Annexure R/5. Thereafter, respondents issued an order Annexure P/l by which it was held that "after issue of notice, explanation of the petitioner for the delay in lodging account of election expenses has not been found to be sufficient and satisfactory and the Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said failure and declared the petitioner to be disqualified for being chosen and as for being a member of Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council for a period of five years from the date of the order". This order is under challenge in this petition. Contentions of the petitioners are as under:- (i) That, according to section 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, in case of failure to lodge account of election expenses within time and in the manner required by or under the Act, the Election Commission, if found no good reason or justification for the failure, has power to declare the candidate to be disqualified. This provision is penal in nature and ought to have been exercised by the Election Commission after affording due opportunity of hearing. (ii) That the Election Commission has issued an order as M.P. Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 which provides procedure for lodging of election expenses account by a candidate. Para 10 of the order provides a special procedure about report by the District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon. Para 10 of the order provides a special procedure about report by the District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon. Sub-para (5) of para 10 provides that where the Election Commission decides that a contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified u/s 32-C of the M.P Municipalities Act, 1961 for the failure. Sub-para (6) further provides that the candidate who has been called upon to show under paragraph (5) may within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit in respect of the matter a representation in writing to the Election Commission, and shall at the same time send to the District Election Officer a copy of his representation together with a complete account of his election expenses if he had not already furnished such an account. Sub-para (7) provides one further opportunity to the candidate to furnish his account of election expenses if he had already not furnished such account and on furnishing such accounts, the District Election Officer shall, within five days of the receipt thereof, forward to the Election Commission the copy of the representation and the account, if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further appropriate action. (iii) Election Commission on filing of such account of election expenses has not considered the account of election expenses and explanation for nonfiling of the account and has passed Order Annexure P/1 without considering the reply and explanation by the petitioner. Sub-para (6) of para 10 of the Order provides an opportunity to the election candidate to submit his account. petitioner availed the opportunity to submit his account and explanation, in these circumstances, the Election Commission ought to have considered the matter in view of sub-paras (5) and (6) of para 10 of the Order and it was not necessary for the Election Commission to disqualify the petitioner for a maximum period of five years from the date of the Order. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. (iv) Para 10 of the Order also provides a complete procedure in this regard. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. (iv) Para 10 of the Order also provides a complete procedure in this regard. The aforesaid para provides one more opportunity to lodge the account, but the said procedure was not followed by the Election Commission in the present case. Impugned order has been passed after more than four years from the date of notice which is contrary to the Scheme of para 10 of the Order. After near-about 5 years from the date of election the petitioner cannot be declared disqualified by the Election Commission. (v) Apart from this, this Court in Shantilal (Bum Bum) Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. The Rajya Nirvachan Ayog and Another, considering the similar circumstances held that the order must contain its reasons, and it requires application of judicial mind to the facts of each case. Impugned order (Annexure P/1) has been passed in respect of 26 persons without considering the explanation submitted. Contending aforesaid, it is prayed that impugned order be quashed. Respondents filed reply and their contentions are as under:- (a) That before passing order u/s 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner, order was passed. (b) It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner u/s 32-A of the Act to keep separate account of election expenses and to lodge it within 30 days from the date of election with the officer notified by the State Election Commission. (c) That, disqualification for not lodging the account is automatic and the Election Commission only declared him to be disqualified. (d) That under para 7 of the order, the accounts are to be submitted to the District Election Officer within 30 days from the date of election. The District Election Officer is required to send report to State Election Commission about every contesting candidate in respect of the lodging of the account of election expenses. Result of the election was declared on 27-12-1999 and the petitioner was required to submit account within 30 days, but he did not submitted the same. A report was submitted by the Collector (Annexure R/1) to the State Election Commission about non-furnishing of the account on 3-2-2000. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued (Annexure R/2) on 17-3-2000 to the petitioner. A report was submitted by the Collector (Annexure R/1) to the State Election Commission about non-furnishing of the account on 3-2-2000. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued (Annexure R/2) on 17-3-2000 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a casual reply (Annexure R/3) which was forwarded by the Collector to the Election Commission on 22-9-2003. The petitioner has not submitted a correct account and only submitted receipts of Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Niwadi, Tikamgarh. Election Commission considered and scrutinized all the replies and found that account was not submitted and only receipt was submitted which was not in a prescribed manner. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and there was no justification for non-lodging the account within time. Thereafter, order (Annexure P/6) was passed. In the case, entire procedure was followed and after show cause notice to the petitioner, the order was passed. For the election of local bodies of entire State, Election Commission took sometime to decide the matter. Explanations were sought from all the candidates of the State and thereafter order was passed. It is also submitted that the law laid down by this Court in Shantilal and Jawahar Lai Gupta (supra), is on different footing and does not apply in the present set of fact. Contending aforesaid it is prayed that this petition has no merit and same be dismissed. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, necessary provisions may be seen. Section 32-A, 32-B and 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') read as under:- Section 32-A. Account of election expenses - (1) Every candidate at an election of President 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 days inclusive. Explanation I - Any expenditure incurred or authorized in connection with the election of a President 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 expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent for the purpose of this sub-section. Explanation II - For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangement 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 section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In 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 authorised by a candidate or by his election agent for the purpose of this sub-section. (2) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed, such amount as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the State Election Commission. (3) The account of expenditure shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed by the State Election Commission. Section 32-B. Lodging of account of election expenses - Every contesting candidate at an election of President shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate lodge with the officer notified by the State Election Commission an account of his election expenses which shall be a true copy of the account kept by him or by his election agent u/s 32-A. Section 32-C. Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses.- If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person - (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by or under this Act; and (b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a councillor or President of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat as the case may be, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the Order. Paragraphs 4,5,7 and 10 of Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Expenses Order') read as under:- 4. Paragraphs 4,5,7 and 10 of Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Expenses Order') read as under:- 4. Maintenance of day to day account of election expenses.- (1) The account of election expenses shall be maintained by a candidate or his election agent from day to day, in a register in Proforma A, which shall be supplied to him by the Returning Officer immediately after his nomination. (2) The particulars of every item of expenditure shall be entered in the register referred to in sub-paragraph (1), from day to day in the same chronological order in which the expenditure is incurred or authorised and the vouchers or bills relating to the expenditure shall be maintained along with the register. Production of the record of day to day account election expenses for inspection.- The register of day to day account of election expenses together with the supporting vouchers and bills shall be produced for inspection at any time during the process of election, by the candidate or his election agent, on demand by the Returning Officer. District Election Officer or an Observer or Officer authorised by the Election Commission in this behalf, forthwith and failure to do so shall be deemed to be a major default on the part of the candidate to comply with this order. Lodging of the account of election expenses.- (1) Every contesting candidate or his election agent shall lodge the account of election expenses with the District Election Officer, within the time specified in the Act, that is 30 days from the date of election. (2) The account of election expenses shall comprise the following documents, namely:- (a) the register of day to day account of election expenses referred to in paragraph 4 in original. (b) Vouchers relating to the entries made in the register of election expenses, and (c) abstract statement of election expenses, referred to in paragraph 6. (3) The register of day to day account of election expenses and the abstract statement of election shall be authenticated and counter-signed by the candidate in case they have been prepared and signed by his election agent and the vouchers shall also the countersigned by him, before being lodged. (4) The account of election expenses shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the candidate in Proforma C and shall not be regarded as complete without such an affdavit. (4) The account of election expenses shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the candidate in Proforma C and shall not be regarded as complete without such an affdavit. Report by the district election officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commissioner thereon.- (1) As soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified in the Act for the lodging of the account of election expenses the District Election Officer shall send a report to the Election Commission about every contesting candidate on the following points:- (a) The name of the contesting candidate. (b) Whether such candidate has lodged his account of election expenses and if so, the date on which such account has been lodged; and (c) Where in his opinion such account has been lodged within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order. (2) Whether the District Election Officer is of the opinion that the account of election expenses of any contesting candidate has not been lodged in the manner required by the Act and this order, he shall with every such report forward to the Election Commission the account of election expenses of that candidate. (3) Immediately after the submission of the report referred to in subparagraph (1) the District Election Officer shall publish a copy thereof by affixing the same to his notice board. (4) As soon as may be after the receipt of the report referred to in subparagraph (1) the Election Commission consider the same and decide whether any contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order. (5) Where the Election Commission decides that a contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and this Order, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified u/s 14-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or as the case may be. Section 32-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 for the failure. Section 32-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 for the failure. (6) Any contesting candidate who has been called upon to show under paragraph (5) may within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit in respect of the matter a representation in writing to the Election Commission, and shall at the same time send to the District Election Officer a copy of his representation together with a complete account of his election expenses if he had not already furnished such an account. (7) The District Election Officer shall within five days of the receipt thereof, forward to the Election Commission the copy of the representation and the account, if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further appropriate action. Section 32-A of the Act provides that the candidate of election of a President shall either by himself or by an election agent keep a separate account of expenditure in connection with election between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of result thereof. Section 32-B of the Act provides lodging of account of election expenses within 30 days from the date of election of returned candidate to lodge with the officer nominated by the Election Commission. Section 32-C empowers Election Commission on being satisfied that a person has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within period and in the manner required by or under the Act and has no good reason or justification for the failure. State Election Commission by order published in the official Gazette declare him to be disqualified for being chosen as for a period not exceeding for five years from the date of order. Section 32-C empowers the Election Commission to see reasons or justification on the part of the person who has failed to lodge the account of election expenses. Election Commission is having discretion in respect of duration of disqualification of the person for a period upto five years from the date of order. Though section 32-A of the Act provides maintenance of account of election expenses and section 32-B provides lodging of account of election expenses, but both sections do not provide any disqualification or consequence and same has been envisaged only u/s 32-C of the Act. Aforesaid provision is clear that the disqualification will be on declaration by the Election Commission in this regard and not otherwise. Aforesaid provision is clear that the disqualification will be on declaration by the Election Commission in this regard and not otherwise. The Election Commission has been empowered to look into the fact that the person has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within time and in the manner required under the Act and has no good reason or justification for the failure. Aforesaid provision also empowers Election Commission to disqualify the said person for a period of upto five years. This squarely shows that the Election Commission has to consider facts and circumstances of each case and to pass an order in this regard. Considering the circumstances, Election Commission has power even to reduce the period of disqualification. Aforesaid decision disqualifies the person not only in the election already contested, but also during the period for which he has been disqualified by the Election Commission. The order if not challenged shall remain effective for the period for which he has been disqualified. By the disqualification, his right to contest election in the aforesaid period for the Municipal Council shall remain curtailed. Expenses Order which has been issued u/s 32-A of the Act provides maintenance of day to day account of election expenses, production of the record of day to day account of election expenses and lodging of account of election expenses. Para 8 of the Expenses Order provides notice by District Election Officer for inspection of account. According to this para, the District election officer shall, within two days from the date on which account of election expenses has been lodged by a candidate under paragraph 7, cause a notice to be affixed to his notice board specifying the date on which account was lodged, name of the candidate and the time and place at which such account can be inspected. After the expiry of the time period specified in the Act for lodging of the account election expenses, the District Election Officer will send a report to the Election Commission about every candidate contested the election informing the Election Commission whether such candidate has lodged his account of election expenses or not. In any case, he shall forward his report to the Election Commission in this regard. In any case, he shall forward his report to the Election Commission in this regard. Sub-para (3) of para 10 provides that immediately after the submission of the report referred to in sub-paragraph (1), the District Election Officer shall publish a copy thereof by affixing the same to his notice board. As per sub-para (4) Election Commission, after receipt of the report, consider and decide whether any contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and the Order. When the Election Commission decides that a contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and the Order, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified u/s 32-C of the Act for the failure. Sub-para (6) provides that any contesting candidate who receives the notice may, within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice submit a representation in writing to the Election Commission and shall at the same time send to the District Election Officer a copy of his representation together with a complete account of election expenses, if he had not already furnished such an account. Thereafter, the District Election Officer shall within five days of the receipt thereof, forward to the Election Commission the copy of the representation and the account, if any, with such comments as he wishes to make thereon, for further action by the State Election Commission. Sub-para (6) provides a further opportunity to the candidate to submit his account with explanation on receiving notice by the Election Commission. This is an additional opportunity to the candidate who failed to lodge his account to submit his account along with his explanation. This order does not provide any procedure after receiving the account and explanation on the part of the candidate. Section 32-C of the Act provides satisfaction of the Election Commission in respect of reason or justification for the failure. This shows that the Election Commission has to consider the explanation submitted by the candidate in respect of his failure to lodge the account. Section 32-C of the Act provides satisfaction of the Election Commission in respect of reason or justification for the failure. This shows that the Election Commission has to consider the explanation submitted by the candidate in respect of his failure to lodge the account. Election Commission has to decide the representation considering it and to pass a reasoned order, because non-acceptance of reason or justification or rejection of the representation shall follow the consequence of disqualification to the candidate. In fact, the aforesaid order is punitive in nature and has to be passed after considering facts and circumstances of each case. It is not in dispute that for the first time this provision was made applicable in the elections held in the year 1999. petitioner, who failed to lodge the account, on receiving notice submitted the account along with his explanation. Whether the explanation was good or justified was to be seen by the Election Commission and such order ought to have been communicated to the petitioner, in absence of which it cannot be said that the Election Commission considered the explanation of petitioner and passed the order. Though learned Counsel appearing for Election Commission tried to support his contention that the Election Commission passed the order in the file which is a reasoned order but reason does not find place in the order which was published and sent to the petitioner by which he has been disqualified for a period of five years. In Shantilal's case (supra), this Court considering similar circumstances in paras 9, 10 and 11 held: 9. Perusal of aforequoted section clearly indicate that Election Commission is under legal obligation to record its satisfaction whether a person has failed to make out any good reason or justification for his failure in not submitting the accounts within time prescribed. In other words, if the person is required to make out a good reason or justify as to why and for what reasons, he could not submit the accounts in time. It is equally obligatory upon the State Election Commission to examine as to whether grounds, and/or cause stated in reply constitutes good reason. In other words, if the person is required to make out a good reason or justify as to why and for what reasons, he could not submit the accounts in time. It is equally obligatory upon the State Election Commission to examine as to whether grounds, and/or cause stated in reply constitutes good reason. It requires application of judicial mind to the facts of each case and then a reasoned order as to why the reasons stated in reply by a concerned person do not make out a case of good reasons or why it makes out a case of good reasons. In either case, the order passed by the Election Commissioner must indicate its reasoning. The use of the word "is satisfied" in section 32-C ibid is significant. It contemplates judicial application of mind to be applied by Election Commissioner to the facts of each case and secondly, it must appear from the order that the satisfaction reached has some factual and legal basis. It involves an element of exercise of discretion and when one speaks of exercise of discretion it always means judicial discretion as is well known injudicial parlance. Since, the consequences of adverse order are quite disastrous because it results in vacation of the office secured by democratic way, the issue must be dealt with care and judiciously. As observed supra the impugned order which is conveyed to the petitioner quoted supra, does not contain any reasons, nor it exhibits that it has recorded satisfaction on facts as to why and on what basis the reasons stated by the petitioner in his reply and/or along with the submission of accounts though late do not constitute good reasons. Such order cannot be said to be an order satisfying the requirement of section 32-C ibid, nor it can be said to be an order passed in conformity with the requirement of section 32-C ibid. It is in fact in contravention of section 32-C hence, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order, dated 12-10-2001 published in O.G. dated 19-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed by writ of certiorari. It is in fact in contravention of section 32-C hence, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order, dated 12-10-2001 published in O.G. dated 19-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed by writ of certiorari. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 to again examine as to whether cause stated by the petitioner for late submission of accounts as per requirement of section 32-B satisfies the test of good reason or justifies for the failure. While examining the issue, the respondent No. 1 will take into account all relevant facts, letter correspondence, relied upon by the petitioner, and the causes stated in reply by the petitioner and then a reasoned order shall be passed recording satisfaction one way or other. Let this be done within three months from the date of order. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Jawahar Lai Gupta's case (supra) wherein this Court held: "17. Though it is not necessary to go into the question whether notice Annexure R/2 was, as a matter of fact, served on the petitioner as the service of the same has been seriously disputed. Notice Annexure R/2 was allegedly issued to the petitioner on 27th May, 2000 and served on 12-6-2000 in the note-sheet which culminated in order passed by the State Election Commission quoted above on which basis the Gazette Notification Annexure P/l was issued. It has not been mentioned in the office note-sheet that any such notice was ever issued to the petitioner. Annexure R/2 notice has not been made the basis by the State Election Commission itself while disqualifying the petitioner. There is no reference that such a notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of May. The only notice referred to was Annexure P/2 dated 22-2-2000 which was issued by the District Election Officer. Thus, it appears that State Election Commission did not properly consider the actual factual situation on record and did not apply its mind to the fact that whether the petitioner was intimated specifically as to the defects in proper manner and whether there was service of notice Annexure R/2 on petitioner, and it was not the ground employed that petitioner had failed to file a reply in spite of having received notice Annexure R/2. No such finding is recorded by the State Election Commission in its order. Until and unless State Election Commission considers each and every fact, the consequences enumerated u/s 32-C of the Act of 1961 could not be made to fall upon the petitioner as the consequences are serious, carries dismembership and disqualification to contest the election for a maximum period of five years which was invoked to the maximum against petitioner. petitioner has been required to vacate office without due compliance of the provisions quoted above. Though argument of learned senior counsel for State Election Commission based on protection of democracy is attractive, but in my considered opinion a person who has been elected, by a democratic process must be removed following procedure and not in an unreasonable manner in violation of basic safeguards provided in the Order of 1997 which recognizes the principles of natural justice. The State Election Commission has not applied its mind whether there was substantial compliance. It is not the ground adopted in the order by the State Election Commission that on register signatures of petitioner were not there, no notice to that effect was issued, then there is entry or voucher in the register and the vouchers have been signed by the election agent; only defect appears to be that of "counter signature" of candidate. A copy of accounts can also be furnished within the time supported by an affidavit, register and vouchers. It has to be determined by Election Commission whether there was "substantial compliance" made before ordering the petitioner to be disqualified. All these questions have to be gone into and decided afresh by a reasoned and speaking order by the State Election Commission after duly giving opportunity to petitioner by a notice specifically pointing out defects. It is open to the State Election Commission to hear the petitioner afresh pointing out specifically all the defects to him and afford an opportunity as contemplated under para 10 of the Order of 1997 and thereafter to take a just decision as it may deem fit. No order as to costs." The Apex Court in L.R. Shivaramagowda, Etc. Vs. T.M. Chandrashekar Etc., considering the question of excess expenditure in the election held that failure to maintain true and correct accounts by itself does not amount to corrupt practice of incurring or authorizing excess expenditure justifying setting aside the election. No order as to costs." The Apex Court in L.R. Shivaramagowda, Etc. Vs. T.M. Chandrashekar Etc., considering the question of excess expenditure in the election held that failure to maintain true and correct accounts by itself does not amount to corrupt practice of incurring or authorizing excess expenditure justifying setting aside the election. The Apex Court in para 18 of the judgment held thus:- 18. We shall now proceed to the second limb of the argument of the appellant's counsel. The High Court has held that the appellant had not maintained a true and correct account of expenditure incurred or authorized and the same amounted to corrupt practice. "Corrupt practices" have been set out in section 123 of the Act. According to the first respondent, the appellant is guilty of a corrupt practice described in sub-section (6) of section 123. Under that sub-section, the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Act is a corrupt practice section 77 provides that every candidate at an election shall keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent and that the accounts shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 86 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 sets out the particulars, to be contained in the account of election expense. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 77 deal with the maintenance of account. Sub-section (3) of section 77 provides that the total of the election expenses referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. Rule 90 of the Conduct of Elections Rules prescribes the maximum limit for any Assembly Constituency. In order to declare an election to be void, the grounds were set out in section 100 of the Act. Sub-section (1)(b) of section 100 relates to any corrupt practice committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent. In order to bring a matter within the scope of sub-section (1)(b), the corrupt practice has to be one defined in section 123. What is referred to in sub-section (6) of section 123 as corrupt practice is only the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77. In order to bring a matter within the scope of sub-section (1)(b), the corrupt practice has to be one defined in section 123. What is referred to in sub-section (6) of section 123 as corrupt practice is only the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77. Sub-section (6) of section 123 does not take into its fold, the failure to maintain true and correct accounts. The language of sub-section (6) is so clear that the corrupt practice defined therein can relate only to sub-section (3) of section 77, i.e. the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that non-compliance with section 77(1) and (2) would also fall within the scope of section 123(6). Consequently, it cannot fall u/s 100(1)(b). The attempt here by the first respondent is to bring it within section 100(1)(d)(iv). The essential requirement under that sub-section is that the result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected. It is needless to point out that failure on the part of the returned candidate to maintain accounts as required by sections 77(1) and (2) will in no case affect, and much less materially, the result of the election. The Election Commission is under an obligation to record its satisfaction whether a person has failed to make out good reasons or justification for his failure in not submitting the account within time period. If a person is required to make out a good reason or justification as to why and for what reason he could not submit the account in time, it is equally obligatory on the part of Election Commission to examine as to whether ground or cause stated in reply constitutes good reason. To arrive at a finding it requires application of mind judiciously to the facts of each case and thereafter to pass a reasoned order in respect of acceptance or rejection of explanation. Not only this, the said order should be communicated to the petitioner by which his explanation or contention was rejected by the Election Commission. The Election Commission has notified the order in all the cases which are similar in nature. Not only this, the said order should be communicated to the petitioner by which his explanation or contention was rejected by the Election Commission. The Election Commission has notified the order in all the cases which are similar in nature. But whether the Election Commission decided the matters after due consideration of explanation given by the candidate for the delay in lodging the account of election expenses by a reasoned order does not find place in the order. Similar order finds place in all the cases. The Election Commission has passed one order in respect of more than one candidate and in fact has disqualified by the same order to more than one candidate. Admittedly, in all the cases, no opportunity of hearing was provided by the Election Commission before passing order. When the petitioner is to be disqualified by his statutory right to contest the election for a period of five years, it was obligatory on the part of the Election Commission to consider the reasons in detail and to pass a reasoned order. The candidate was not only disqualified for the present election but the disqualification shall continue for further period of five years. In fact the effect of the order will affect two elections. From the perusal of the scheme of Expenses Order in para 10, it is apparent that the said order is to be passed within reasonable time. Within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result, the candidate has to lodge his account. Thereafter, the District Election Officer immediately has to send a report to the Election Commission about non-lodging of the account. Sub-para (4) of para 10 also provides that as soon as the Election Commission receives the report, it shall consider same and when Election Commission decides that the contesting candidate has failed to lodge account of election expenses, then it has to issue a show cause notice. In the cases, show-cause notice was issued in the year 2000 and the impugned order has been passed in 2004 after nearabout four years. If Election Commission would have acted promptly then the said order ought to have been passed in the year 2000 itself. In the cases, show-cause notice was issued in the year 2000 and the impugned order has been passed in 2004 after nearabout four years. If Election Commission would have acted promptly then the said order ought to have been passed in the year 2000 itself. Considering explanation, it was within discretion of the Election Commission to disqualify the candidate for a lesser period than five years and it is not mandatory that in every case Election Commission shall disqualify the candidate for maximum period of five years. In these circumstances if the decision would have been taken by the Election Commission in the year 2000 then period for disqualification must have ended before the next election, as the case may be. But the Election Commission took a period of nearabout 4 years for considering the explanation and reasons assigned by the candidate which cannot be appreciated. Petitioner cannot be penalized to contest present election on the basis of the order which has been issued, by the Election Commission in the year 2004 after four years from the date of submitting explanation by the candidate. Apart from this, in the impugned order which has been notified, the Election Commission by stereo-typed order has disqualified all the candidates. The detail order as stated by the Election Commission has not been served on the candidate. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner for the election with further disqualification for five years from the date of order cannot be sustained under the law. The order by Gazette notifications issued by the Election Commission in respect of all the three petitioners are hereby quashed. petitions are allowed, with no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed