Judgment :- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners before this Court are elected Councilors of Respondent No. 4 – Municipal Council, Lonar and they are aggrieved by common order dated 18.02.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 holding that they have incurred disqualification by not submitting return of their election expenditure by 25.04.2009. 3. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that provisions of Section 16(1D) of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) & Industrial Township Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality Act), confer discretion upon Respondent No. 2 to pass such order of disqualification, if it finds that the Councilor in default had no good reason or justification for his failure. His first contention is, said order does not disclose any application of mind in this respect. He points out that a show cause notice was served upon all elected Councilors by Respondent No. 2 and reply has been filed to it individually by the petitioners. All petitioners have pointed out that within a period of one month i.e. before 25.04.2009 they have given statement of accounts on plain paper to Returning Officer. The requirement of furnishing an affidavit was not known and after getting that knowledge, immediately necessary affidavit was furnished on 18.05.2009 by all the petitioners. He, therefore, argues that these individual details are not looked into and there is no finding that compliance submitted by the petitioners was not constituting a good reason or justification. He has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCT vs. Shukla & Bros., reported at (2010) 4 SCC 785 , particularly paras 10 & 12 to urge that such individual application of mind to the explanation furnished in fact shows the reasons for reaching a particular conclusion and, therefore, constitute soul of any judicial or quasi judicial order. The absence of reasons is breach of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, states that disqualification of all petitioners must be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has invited attention to reply affidavit filed on record. The absence of reasons is breach of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, states that disqualification of all petitioners must be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has invited attention to reply affidavit filed on record. He also invites attention to a line appearing in impugned order which records that the petitioners have not given any good reason or justification and he further argues that the records with the office of the Collector, Buldhana and Returning Officer were looked in to arrive at this finding. He was in fact seeking adjournment to produce those records before this Court. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 1 has also supported the impugned order. 6. The request for adjournment is opposed by the petitioner, who contends that the reasons or application of mind in impugned order cannot be supplemented by taking recourse to any other material. 7. I have perused the impugned order dated 18.02.2010. The said order runs into four paras and thereafter there is a list of 78 persons who contested the election and all of them have been declared to have incurred disqualification under Section 16 (1D) of the Municipality Act. It is not in dispute that name of present 15 petitioners appear in this list. First para of the order mentions only the provision of law. The second para makes reference to time of 30 days prescribed for furnishing accounts and that accordingly accounts ought to have been furnished by 25.04.2009. The third para then mentions that 78 candidates whose name appear below in that order contesting the election of Lonar Municipal Council were served with a show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 for not giving the accounts within prescribed time and were called upon to file their reply by 27.11.2009 and thereafter the last para which in fact records a finding appears. In last para or fourth para, it is mentioned that as none of the candidates furnished any good reasons or justification for not submitting accounts within the prescribed limit, they have incurred disqualification. The perusal of this order, therefore, does not disclose whether the petitioners filed any reply to show cause notice within time or they did not file any reply. The contents of said reply are also not looked into. The perusal of this order, therefore, does not disclose whether the petitioners filed any reply to show cause notice within time or they did not file any reply. The contents of said reply are also not looked into. The petitioners have stated that before 25.04.2009, accounts were furnished to Returning Officer on plain paper. The correctness or otherwise of this assertion is not enquired by Respondent No. 2. If the accounts were furnished on plain paper, what was the objection to that, is also not on record. The petitioners have then stated that at the relevant time they were not aware of requirement of furnishing affidavit and hence affidavit on stamp paper of Rs. 100/has been filed on 18.05.2009. Why this affidavit filed later on could not have been accepted as compliance, is also not discussed anywhere. Thus, fact of filing of such affidavit or accounts or then relevance thereof is not taken into account by Respondent No. 2 while declaring the petitioners disqualified under Section 16(1D) of the Municipality Act for a period of three years. 8. The perusal of Section 16(1D) shows that it requires Respondent No. 2 to record a finding if there is failure to lodge account of election expenses within time prescribed and in the manner required by State Election Commission. It further requires Respondent No. 2 to find out whether explanation given by the petitioners for not complying with these requirements is reasonable or sufficient to justify his failure. The said provision uses the word “may” and thus discretion is conferred upon Respondent No. 2. Prima facie, it appears that mere failure to furnish accounts within time or in the manner prescribed may not constitute disqualification. Here, the relevant facts placed on record by the petitioners are not gone into by Respondent No. 2 at all. He has acted mechanically and has declared the petitioners disqualified. The discretion appears to have been conferred deliberately with a view to maintain the election of a person, who has been democratically elected as a Municipal Councilor as far as possible. Disqualification is a serious stigma and hence the necessary requirements to be fulfilled before holding a person disqualified are already indicated in that subsection. The impugned order does not meet the standards prescribed for said purpose by State Legislature. 9. Disqualification is a serious stigma and hence the necessary requirements to be fulfilled before holding a person disqualified are already indicated in that subsection. The impugned order does not meet the standards prescribed for said purpose by State Legislature. 9. The consideration above clearly shows that grant of time to Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel, would not have resulted into any fruitful assistance to this Court in the matter. 10. The impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 – State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, shall apply his mind to individual facts as apparent from reply to show cause notice (if filed) and thereafter shall pass fresh order in accordance with law. It is made clear that Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel has raised certain other contentions but all those contentions need not be gone into at this stage and are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. 11. All writ petitions are allowed. Rule accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.