ORDER Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing correctness and validity of order dated 14-05-2013 passed by the State Election Commission, by which, the petitioner has been declared disqualified" under Section 32(C) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in Short "the Act of 1961"). The relevant factual matrix necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner contested election for the office of President, Nagar Panchayat, Pali in the election held on 23-12-2009. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes, was declared elected for the post of President vide declaration certificate dated 27-12-2009 issued by the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted his election expenses account in the office of Assistant Returning Officer on 04-01-2010, who in turn, forwarded the said account to the District Election Officer vide memo dated 08-01-2010 (Annexure P-3). However, account so submitted by the petitioner before the Assistant Returning Officer on 04-01-2010 and forwarded to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010 were not treated as having been submitted before the District Election Officer within the time and in the manner prescribed, therefore, the State Election Commission issued a notice to the petitioner on 26-02-2010 to show cause as to why the petitioner be not disqualified for having failed to submit election expenses account within the time and in the manner prescribed. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted that he had submitted his election expenses account before the Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pali in prescribed proforma, but the same was returned to him for necessary correction and thereafter, necessary correction having been made, it was again submitted. Upon submission of petitioner's explanation, the Collector also vide memo dated 20-10-2010 informed the State Election Commission that the election expenses account have not been found to be submitted in the manner prescribed, and therefore, returned the same, due to which, the petitioner could not submit accounts on or before 27-01-2010 but informed that the accounts were submitted before the Chief Municipal Officer within the time, therefore, the delay may be condoned. It appears that pursuant to memo dated 31-01-2011, the Collector again forwarded memo dated 05-03-2011 to the State Election Commission, in which, it was further clarified that election expenses account were returned because of defects and after removal of defects, it was deposited before the Officer Incharge, Nagar Panchayat, Pali on 16-02-2010 and accordingly, recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear before the State Election Commission and the State Election Commission heard the petitioner on 27-12-2011. However, the State Election Commission passed the impugned order on 14-05-2013 disqualifying the petitioner by holding that the petitioner failed to submit election expenses account within the time and also failed to provide proper reasons/justification for such failure. It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had submitted the election expenses account as early as on 04-01-2010 before the Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pali. However, the same was returned to the petitioner, as there was some defect. Those defects were corrected and thereafter, it was again submitted before the Assistant Returning Officer, who in turn, vide memo dated 08-01-2010 forwarded the accounts to the District Election Officer. The petitioner again submitted corrected copies of expenses on 16-02-2010. Thus, the petitioner did submit the accounts though, before the Assistant Returning Officer but there were certain defects which were rectified. In fact, the Assistant Returning Officer also forwarded the accounts vide memo dated 08-01-2010. The defects, if any, were also rectified and second submission was also made on 16-02-2010 before the Officer Incharge of election expenses account, Nagar Panchayat, Pali. Thus, the petitioner had cogent reason or justification for his failure. The Collector had also recommended the case of the petitioner but the Election Commission did not consider the relevant aspects of the matter, particularly submission of the expenses account before the Assistant Returning Officer, forwarded to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010 and submission of corrected and rectified election expenses account on 16-02-2010. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Election Commission supported the order of disqualification and submits that the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Election Commission supported the order of disqualification and submits that the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of law. It is argued that the law in no uncertain terms requires the petitioner to submit election expenses account before the District Election Officer within a period of 30 days. The petitioner failed to give any explanation whatsoever as to why he did not submit the election expenses account before the prescribed authority. Submission that the accounts were submitted before the Assistant Returning Officer does not constitute any explanation. The District Election Officer received the accounts of the petitioner after delay of 20 days on 16-02-2010 and information disclosed by the Collector would show that the petitioner had not submitted the accounts before any competent authority and that too was not proper but defective, which was returned to the petitioner for being corrected. Thus, the petitioner did not come out with any specific reason or justification for such failure. All these facts were taken into consideration by the Election Commission, which upon due consideration of the explanation, held that the explanation is not acceptable. Therefore, the order passed by the Election Commission does not warrant any interference. 4. Before examining the merits of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to examine the statutory scheme relating to lodging of accounts of election expenses engrafted under the Act of 1961. For this purpose, it would be relevant to extract the provisions contained in Section 32 hereinbelow:-- "32. Preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections.- (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for and the conduct of (all elections of Presidents and Councillors) of the Municipality shall be vested in the State Election Commission. (2) The State Government shall, in consultation with the State Election Commission, make rules for the preparation of Electoral rolls and conduct of (all elections of Presidents and Councillors) of the Municipality. Section 32-A of the said Act requires the account of election expenses to be maintained by the candidate 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. Section 32-A of the said Act requires the account of election expenses to be maintained by the candidate 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. Section 32-B of the Act of 1961 further requires lodging of account of election expenses by the contesting candidates within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate. The provision being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:-- "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 under section 32-A." Section 32-C of the Act of 1961 deals with disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses, which reads as under: "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 member 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." 5. In exercise of power under Article 243(ZA) of the Constitution of India read with Section 32-A of the Act of 1961, the State Election Commission has promulgated an order known as Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Accounts) Order, 1997. Sub para 5, 6 and 7 of para 10 of the said order is being relevant are extracted hereinbelow:- "10. Report by District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon.-- 5. Sub para 5, 6 and 7 of para 10 of the said order is being relevant are extracted hereinbelow:- "10. Report by District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon.-- 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 be noticed in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under Section 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. 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." 6. A conjoint reading of the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1961 and the provisions contained in the order of 1997 reveal that every contesting candidate at an election of President shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate is required to lodge with the Officer, an account of his election expenses with the Officer notified by the State Election Commission. It is not in dispute that in the present case that the District Election Officer has been notified by the State Election Commission as the Officer notified for the purpose of Section 32-B. However, failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner by or under the Act may lead to disqualification. It is not in dispute that in the present case that the District Election Officer has been notified by the State Election Commission as the Officer notified for the purpose of Section 32-B. However, failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner by or under the Act may lead to disqualification. It has been provided that where the Commission is satisfied that the person has failed to lodge account of election expenses within the time and in the manner by or under the Act and has no good reason or justification for failure, the Commission may by order published in the Official Gazette, declare such person to be disqualified and for being member of the Municipal Council of the Nagar Panchayat as the case may be for a period not exceeding five years from the date of order. The provisions contained in clause 10 of the order of 1997 lay down the procedure required to be followed in such cases where the candidate has failed to submit election expenses account within the time and in the manner prescribed under the law. The Commission is required to give notice in writing calling upon the candidate to show cause against his disqualification, upon which, the candidate may, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice, submit in respect of the matter, a representation in writing to the Election Commission. The candidate is obliged to send at the same time, the election expenses account to the District Election Officer along with a representation, if the same has also not been furnished. Thereafter, the District Election Officer is required to forward the comments, if any, given along with the copy of representation to the State Election Commission and the accounts. Analysis of the statutory scheme as above, leads to inevitable conclusion that mere non-submission of the account of election expenses within the time and in the manner prescribed under the law does not lead to disqualification. The disqualification may entail only when the Commission is satisfied that the candidate has failed to submit accounts within the time and in the manner prescribed and has failed to come out with any reason or justification for such failure. 7. The disqualification may entail only when the Commission is satisfied that the candidate has failed to submit accounts within the time and in the manner prescribed and has failed to come out with any reason or justification for such failure. 7. In the case of Jawahar Lal Gupta v. Rajya Nirvachan Ayog, Bhopal and another 2003(1) MPLJ 180 , the Supreme Court analyzed the statutory scheme of disqualification under the Act of 1961 and the procedure prescribed in the Order of 1997 and it was held:- "A contesting candidate can rectify the default within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice, submit in respect of the matter a representation in writing to the Election Commission, and shall at the same time sent 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. It is apparent that even in the election expenses were not earlier filed, can be filed subsequently on receipt of the notice as contemplated under sub-para (5) of para 10 of the Order of 1997." 8. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner is an elected representative of the people. The elected official is accountable because he is elected by large number of villagers. His removal would have serious repercussion as he may be removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the election for stipulated period which also takes away right of people of his constituency to be represented by him. The consequence of disqualification is serious. Therefore, while examining the reasons or justification put forth by the elected representatives in the matter of delayed submission of election expenses have to be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid relevant consideration of public importance. 9. Present is not a case where the petitioner had not at all submitted details of account but the present is a case where the petitioner did submit his election expenses account but not before the competent authority i.e. the District Election Officer but before the Assistant Returning Officer and record reveal that the expenses account submitted by the petitioner were forwarded by the Assistant Returning Officer to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010. The correspondences between the Collector and the State Election Commission and the representations made by the petitioner, however, disclose that the expenses account submitted by the petitioner were returned as having been found to be defective which was again submitted by the petitioner and received by the District Election Officer on 16-02-2010. It is not a case where even subsequent submission of expenses account is found to be defective or lacking any material and particular details. In fact, the Collector has recommended that the delay may be condoned. 10. The provisions contained in the Order of 1997 would show that even in a case, where no expenses account have been submitted, the candidate may submit his accounts within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice to show cause along with his representation. Therefore, all the attending circumstances 'which led to either non-submission or delayed submission are required to be closely examined by the Election Commission before passing an order declaring disqualified the elected representative. In other words, the decision for disqualification has to be taken only upon satisfaction that the concerned person has failed to come forward with any reason or justification for such failure. 11. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner did submit his accounts before the Assistant Returning Officer, who in turn, forwarded it to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010. Therefore, within a short period of less than 15 days, election expenses accounts submitted by the petitioner were forwarded to the District Election Officer. It is nowhere recorded in the order of the Commission that even the first submission, forwarded on 08-01-2010 by the Assistant Returning Officer, reached the office of the Collector/District Election Officer after expiry of 30 days. In any case, even if the petitioner had committed any default in submitting the accounts before the appropriate authority, the Assistant Returning Officer, when the records were being submitted before him, could have directed the petitioner that the petitioner should submit the accounts before the District Election Officer. It has to be noted that the petitioner had submitted the accounts on 04-01-2010 i.e. within 10 days of the date of declaration of election. Therefore, the bonafides of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Thus, to some extent, the Assistant Returning Officer is also responsible. It has to be noted that the petitioner had submitted the accounts on 04-01-2010 i.e. within 10 days of the date of declaration of election. Therefore, the bonafides of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Thus, to some extent, the Assistant Returning Officer is also responsible. He should have directed the petitioner that he should not again submit the accounts before him, but submit the same before the District Election Officer. In any case, the Assistant Returning Officer forwarded the accounts of the petitioner on 08-01-2010 itself. The accounts were required to be submitted within 30 days on or before 27-01-2010. It is no where stated in the order that it was not received on 27-01-2010. In fact, the accounts of the petitioner had reached the office of the District Election Officer but it was returned to the Assistant Returning Officer requiring the petitioner to submit proper and correct accounts which was also submitted before the District Election Officer on 16-02-2010. Thus, these circumstances taken together provided full justification. However, the Commission has not considered all these aspects of the matter and rejected the justification without considering all the aforesaid relevant circumstances constituting justification and reason for delayed submission. In para 5 of its order, the Commission has clearly recorded that even-corrected copy was forwarded by Assistant Returning Officer to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010 but it was received by the District Election Officer as late as on 16-02-2010. Therefore, it is apparent that the delay in communication was the main operative reason. As the Assistant Returning Officer was not the competent authority to receive, he should not have accepted it and instead directed the petitioner that the petitioner should submit his corrected copy of accounts before the District Election Officer. However, the Assistant Returning Officer has accepted the lodging of election expenses account in his office and same was forwarded to the District Election Officer on 08-01-2010. All these facts and circumstances did make out a full proof case of just and proper justification and reason for such failure of submissions within the time stipulated, particularly when neither the Collector nor the Election Commission has doubted the correctness of the account submitted by the petitioner, rejection of justification and disqualification of the petitioner is against the spirit of the provisions of law. There is another aspect of the matter. There is another aspect of the matter. Though, the petitioner had personally appeared before the Election Commission on 27-12-2011, the impugned order has been passed on 14-05-2013 declaring the petitioner disqualified for a period of three years which would obviously operate with effect from the date of the order. Thus, the order not only disqualifies the petitioner but also disqualifies to work as President for a period of three years up to 14-05-2013. Had this order been passed within reasonable time, may be that the disqualification, even if imposed, might not have disqualified the petitioner to contest the ensuing election. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the State Election Commission cannot be sustained in law, and is therefore, set aside. The order declaring the petitioner disqualified is hereby set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.