JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner thereby upholding the disqualification of the petitioner on account of his failure to submit the statement of accounts as to the expenses incurred in contesting the elections to the Gram Panchayat. The initial order of disqualification has been passed by the Additional Collector under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, 'the said Act'). 3. The facts in brief that are relevant to decide the challenges raised in the writ petition are that the elections to elect members of Gram Panchayat, Sarra, Tah.Tirora, District Gondia were held in July 2015. In those elections seven posts of members were to be filled in. The petitioner along with six other candidates were declared elected unopposed as members of the Gram Panchayat. After the results were so declared, the Additional Collector as per the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act called upon the elected members to submit the statement of account of election expenses within the stipulated period. In response to the notice dated 26.01.2016 issued to the petitioner, a reply was filed on 25.02.2016 stating therein that as all the members of the Gram Panchayat were elected unopposed without holding any elections, the statement of account of expenses was not submitted. The petitioner was then given notice of hearing and the Additional Collector thereafter passed an order disqualifying the petitioner for failure to submit the statement of account of election expenses as per the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 16(2) of the said Act. The Additional Commissioner held that even though the petitioner and other members were elected unopposed, as the election process had been completed it was necessary for the elected candidates and especially the petitioner to have submitted the statement of account of election expenses as required. As the same was not done, the order of disqualification as passed by the Additional Collector was upheld. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. 4. As the same was not done, the order of disqualification as passed by the Additional Collector was upheld. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. 4. Shri I.N.Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the admitted position that all members of the Gram Panchayat had been elected unopposed without there being any contest, the petitioner did not lodge the account of election expenses. The fact that all the members were elected unopposed itself indicated that the petitioner was not required to either canvas or seek any vote in her favour. There was no need to spend any amount in the elections while being so elected. He submitted that under the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act, it was necessary for the Additional Collector to have considered this relevant reason before proceeding to disqualify the petitioner. He referred to the observations in Vaijayata Deepak Warke and others Vs. State Election Commission and others, 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 35 to support his contentions and submitted that the impugned order of disqualification was liable to be set aside. 5. Shri A.V.Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents supported the impugned order by relying on the affidavit in reply. He submitted that in view of the fact that the elections were held and the petitioner failed to submit his account of election expenses within the prescribed period, the disqualification as prescribed under Section 14B of the said Act stood attracted. Mere fact the petitioner was elected unopposed could not be a reason for not submitting the account of election expenses. The impugned orders were passed after considering all relevant aspects and hence there was no case to interfere with the same. He submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the documents placed on record. I have also given due consideration to the respective submissions. Under the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, an election is required to be held to constitute a Panchayat. The term of the Panchayat is limited for a period of five years. I have also given due consideration to the respective submissions. Under the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, an election is required to be held to constitute a Panchayat. The term of the Panchayat is limited for a period of five years. Under the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act on satisfaction of the State Election Commissioner that a person has failed to lodge account of election expenses within the time stipulated and in absence of any good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commissioner can declare such person to be disqualified for being a member of the Panchayat or for contesting the elections for being a member for a period of five years from the date of such order. The said provision therefore indicates that failure to lodge an account of election expenses does not by itself attract disqualification. It is only if the person sought to be disqualified under Section 14B of the said Act is unable to furnish any good reason or justification for his failure to lodge account of election expenses within the stipulated time that he can be disqualified under the said provision. 7. Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the said Rules') the manner in which the elections are to be held has been stipulated. After scrutiny of nomination papers under Rules 11 and 12 of the said Rules, the eligible candidates have an option of withdrawing their candidature under Rule 13. Under Rule 14 the list of contesting candidates and a notice of election is required to be prepared and published. Rule 15 refers to uncontested elections and Rule 15(1) stipulates that where the number of candidates duly qualified to be chosen is equal to the number of candidates so qualified, the Returning Officer shall declare such candidate to be duly elected. As per Rule 15(2) similar provision is made insofar as reserved seats are concerned. The said Rules further indicate that after this stage is over, symbols are allotted to the contesting candidates under Rule 16 and thereafter the ballot paper is required to be prepared. The subsequent Rules refer to further stages prior to recording of votes and thereafter declaration of results. The said Rules further indicate that after this stage is over, symbols are allotted to the contesting candidates under Rule 16 and thereafter the ballot paper is required to be prepared. The subsequent Rules refer to further stages prior to recording of votes and thereafter declaration of results. From the aforesaid provisions, it can be seen that if under Rule 15 it is found that number of candidates duly nominated as eligible to contest the elections is equal to the number of seats to be filled in then the Returning Officer has to declare the candidates so nominated to be duly elected without any votes being taken. In other words, a candidate who is elected unopposed under Rule 15 is not required to canvass his candidature as he is declared elected at that stage itself. The allotment of symbols is only in case of eligible candidates being larger in number than the posts to be filled in through elections. It is thus obvious that if a candidate is elected unopposed under Rule 15, no further steps are required to be taken and such candidate is not required to undertake any canvassing for his election. A candidate would be required to canvas his candidature only if he is required to contest the election. 8. When the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that since inception the petitioner had taken a stand by filing her reply to the notice issued by the Additional Collector that as all seven members of the Gram Panchayat were elected unopposed, the statement of account of election expenses was not submitted. The fact that all members of the Panchayat were elected unopposed is even admitted by the Tahsildar who was the Returning Officer. The only reason putforth by the Authorities is that in view of the directions issued by the State Election Commission it was mandatory for the petitioner to have submitted a statement of account of election expenses. The effect of this stand is that though the petitioner was elected unopposed and it was her case that she was not required to canvas for being so elected, there is an insistence for submission of account of election expenses in view of the directions issued by the State Election Commissioner. The effect of this stand is that though the petitioner was elected unopposed and it was her case that she was not required to canvas for being so elected, there is an insistence for submission of account of election expenses in view of the directions issued by the State Election Commissioner. This would be an insistence on compliance with the said requirements despite there being a good reason as well as justification for not submitting the account of election expenses. A reference in passing could be made to the observations in Kacho Mohd. Ali Khan Vs. Kushok Bakula, 34 ELR 323. The respondent therein was elected unopposed. In the election petition challenging his election, the question raised was the effect of his not furnishing election expenses within the prescribed period. After referring to the provisions of Section 38 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the relevant Rules it was observed that the word “contest” indicates resistance, opposition or conflict. To a candidate who had been elected unopposed, the term “contest” would not apply. 9. It is to be noted that under the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act, if there is any good reason or justification for failure on the part of a person to lodge account of election expenses within time, the State Election Commissioner 'may' direct disqualification of such person. A discretion has been conferred on the State Election Commissioner that if it is satisfied that there is a good reason or justification for failure to lodge an account of election expenses, it may not disqualify such person. As stated above, since all the members of the Gram Panchayat were elected unopposed as per the provisions of Rule 15 of the said Rules, further election process was not required to be undertaken. Since there was no contest or election, the petitioner was not required to canvas and undertake expenses towards contesting the election. These were good reasons as well as the justification for not submitting the account of election expenses. This aspect was brought to the notice of the Authorities immediately by filing reply after receiving the show cause notice. Said explanation as furnished has not been considered in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the said Act and the Rules. These were good reasons as well as the justification for not submitting the account of election expenses. This aspect was brought to the notice of the Authorities immediately by filing reply after receiving the show cause notice. Said explanation as furnished has not been considered in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the said Act and the Rules. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that very often with the consensus amongst the villagers, the members of the Gram Panchayat are elected unopposed with a view to maintain healthy atmosphere in the Gram Panchayat. If undisputedly there was no contest for electing the members of the Gram Panchayat, there was no reason on the part of the respondents to insist upon the petitioner to submit the account of election expenses. This relevant aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities while directing disqualification of the petitioner. The facts of the present case indicate the reason for not lodging an account of election expenses which reason is found to be good for the purposes of Section 14B of the said Act. 10. In that view of the matter, it is found that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Additional Collector disqualifying the petitioner under Section 14B of the said Act as well as the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner dismissing the appeal are set aside. It is held that the petitioner has not incurred disqualification under Section 14B of the said Act. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.