JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 07.06.2018 is under challenge, by which, the petitioner has been declared disqualified for three years from the date of issuance of the order. 2. The order dated 21.02.2019 as contained under annexure-9 passed by the respondent no.5, by which, an appeal against the order dated 07.06.2018, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that the petitioner who was candidate for election held in the year 2014 from 20-Barkatha Jharkhand Legislative Assembly but the statement of election expenses could not have been submitted, therefore, a show cause notice has been issued and reply to that effect has been submitted along with the statement of election expenses but having not been found to be satisfactory, the order has been passed on 07.06.2018 by disqualifying the petitioner for a period of three years from the date of issuance of order. The aforesaid order has been assailed before the Election Commission of India under its appellate jurisdiction but the appeal has also been dismissed, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by agitating the ground that even accepting that statement of election expenses has not been furnished but the same has been submitted along with the reply submitted in terms of the show cause, therefore, it ought to have been taken into consideration but having not done so, the illegality has been committed. Further ground has been agitated by referring to the appellate order, wherein the reference of non-submission of the election expenses has been made while, according to the petitioner, the details of election expenditure has been furnished along with the reply, therefore, the appellate authority has not acted properly and without any application of mind. The third ground has been agitated by referring to the power of the appellate authority for reduction of the period of disqualification and since the details of election expenditure has already been furnished, therefore, the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration by taking positive decision in this regard. The third ground has been agitated by referring to the power of the appellate authority for reduction of the period of disqualification and since the details of election expenditure has already been furnished, therefore, the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration by taking positive decision in this regard. Fourth ground has been agitated that the subject matter of non-furnishing of the election expenditure is of the year 2014 but the process has been initiated after delay by submitting a report on 15.05.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of Returning Officer and as such, for delay caused by the Deputy Commissioner in furnishing a report, the petitioner cannot be held to be suffered by disqualifying for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the order, rather it ought to have from the date of cause of action which begins immediately after expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of conclusion of election. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.1 to 5, wherein justification has been shown in disqualifying the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Further a due opportunity was given to the petitioner by furnishing reply but having not found to be satisfactory, since it was not submitted in due format within the period stipulated under Section 10-A of the Act, 1951, therefore, the impugned decision has been taken after following the principles of natural justice. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner was the contesting candidate of the 20-Barkatha Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, 2014 and the election was concluded on 23.12.2014. 7. The petitioner, as required under the provision of Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which requires that every contesting candidate at an election shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate has to submit an account of election expenses which shall be a true copy of the account kept by him or by his election agent under Section 77. The Returning Officer has submitted a report as required to be submitted under Section 89 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which provides that as soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified in Section 78 for the lodging of the accounts of election expenses at any election, the District Election Officer, shall report to the Election Commission with respect to the account of election expenses. 8. The authority after coming to the finding that the provision as contained under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has not been followed, has issued show cause notice to the petitioner in terms thereof, reply has been submitted, admitting the fact that within 30 days, no such account of election expenses has been furnished within the stipulated time as provided under Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the details of account expenses has been furnished as contained in the reply to the show cause but the authority has not satisfied with the said reply and has passed the order of disqualification for a period of three years from the date of the order as would appear from annexure-2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order but the same has also been dismissed vide annexure-8 dated 19.02.2019. 9. This Court before entering into legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer the provision as contained under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as also Rule 89 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which reads as hereunder:- “10-A. Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses.-If the 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 not good reason or justification for the failure, the Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from the date of the order. 89. 89. Report by the 1[district election officer] as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon.— (1) As soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified in section 78 for the lodging of the accounts of election expenses at any election, the 1[district election officer] shall report to the Election Commission— (a) the name of each 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) whether in his opinion such account has been lodged within the time and in the manner required by the Act and these rules. (2) Where the 1[district election officer] is of the opinion that the account of election expenses of any candidate has not been lodged in the manner required by the Act and these rules, he shall with every such report forward to the Election Commission the account of election expenses of that candidate and the vouchers lodged along with it. (3) Immediately after the submission of the report referred to in sub-rule (1) the 1[district election officer] shall publish a copy thereof affixing the same to his notice board. (4) As soon as may be after the receipt of the report referred to in sub-rule (1) the Election Commission shall 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 these rules. 2[(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 these rules it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under section 10A for the failure. (6) Any contesting candidate who has been called upon to show cause under sub-rule (5) may within twenty 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 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. (8) If, after considering the representation submitted by the candidate and the comments made by the district election officer and after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Election Commission is satisfied that the candidate has 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, and cause the order to be published in the Official Gazette.] 10. It is evident from the provision of Section 10-A which pertains to a provision for disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses, if the election Commission is satisfied that a person has failed to lodge an account of election expenses, within the time and in the manner required by or under this Act and has no good reason or justification for the failure, the Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from the date of the order. Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which reads as hereunder:- “11. Removal or reduction of period of disqualification.-The Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under this Chapter [(except under section 8-A)] or reduce the period of any such disqualification.” The provision as contained under Section 11 confers power upon the Election Commission may, remove any disqualification or reduce the period of any such disqualification, for the reason to be recorded. Section 78 of the Act, 1951 which reads as hereunder:- “78. Lodging of account with the district election officer.-[(1)]Every contesting candidate at any election shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or, if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates, lodges 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.]” 11. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the requirement of Law is for every contesting candidate at any election shall, within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or, if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates, lodges 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. 12. The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 has been published in the Gazette of India dated 15.04.1961 implemented w.e.f. 25.04.1961, wherein the part-VIII pertains election expenses which contains a provision of Rule 89 which stipulates about the submission of report by the District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon, who will complete the exercise as soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified in Section 78 for the lodging of the accounts of election expenses at any election, the District Election Officer, shall report to the Election Commission. Sub Rule-2 thereof provides that where the District Election Officer is of the opinion that the account of election expenses of any candidate has not been lodged in the manner required by the Act and these rules, he shall with every such report forward to the Election Commission the account of election expenses of that candidate and the vouchers lodges along with it for its consideration by Election Commission of India in terms of sub rule 4 thereof. Sub Rule-5 of Rule 89 provides that if the contesting candidate has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act and these rules it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under section 10-A for the failure and in such eventuality, the contesting candidate will require to submit representation in writing to the Election Commission within 20 days of the receipt of notice and shall at the same time send to the District Election Officer a copy of his representation with a complete account of election expenses if he has not already furnished such account and thereafter, District Election Officer within five days of the receipt thereof, forwarded to the Election Commission the copy of the representation and the account with such comments as he wishes to make thereon and if after considering the representation submitted by the candidate and the comments made by the District Election Officer and after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Election Commission is satisfied that the candidate has not given good reason or justification for the failure to lodge his account, it shall declare him to be disqualified under Section 10-A for a period of three years from the date of the order, and cause the order to be published in the Official Gazette. 13. So far as the fact in hand is concerned, admitted position is that as required under Section 78 of the Act, 1951, the account about election expenses has not been furnished. The District Election Officer has furnished a report to that effect in terms of the provision of Sub rule-1 of Rule 89 has reported about the said matter to the Election Commission of India vide report dated 15.05.2017 and on the basis of the report dated 15.05.2017, notice was issued in terms of the provision of sub rule-5 of Rule 89 asking the petitioner to furnish the account of the election expenses and the said report was received personally by the petitioner on 30.08.2017. 14. 14. The petitioner has not complied with the requirement as required to be completed in terms of the provision of sub rule-5 of Rule-89 by not furnishing the account of election expenses which led the District Election Officer to submit a supplementary report of 26.02.2018 apprising the Election Commission of India that no such accounts have been furnished by the petitioner and thereafter, the process has been initiated for disqualifying as per the provision as contained under Section 10-A of the Act, 1951 by following the procedure as laid down under sub rule-8 of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the petitioner has furnished reply but the original authority has passed an order on 07.06.2018 disqualifying the petitioner for the period of three years from the date of issuance of the order on the ground that petitioner has either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice of the Election Commission or after considering the representation. The petitioner has questioned that order in view of the provision of Section 11 of the Act, 1951 for removal or reduction of period of disqualification. The authority has passed an order on 19.02.2019 as contained under annexure-8 but after consideration of the ground agitated before the said authority and on perusal of the relevant records, the finding has been recorded that the petitioner has not furnished account of election expenses in terms of the provision of Section 78 of the Act, 1951 and even after issuance of show cause notice dated 18.07.2017, no care has been taken for compliance of the aforesaid requirement as provided under Section 78 of the Act, 1951 and even after acceptance of the notice personally. 15. It has further been recorded that the authority on the basis of the aforesaid ground has declined to exercise the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act, 1951. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory provision, in consequence thereof and in exercise of power conferred under Section 10-A of the Act, 1951, the order has been passed for disqualification for the period of three years which has been declined to be reviewed under the power conferred under Section 11 thereof. 16. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory provision, in consequence thereof and in exercise of power conferred under Section 10-A of the Act, 1951, the order has been passed for disqualification for the period of three years which has been declined to be reviewed under the power conferred under Section 11 thereof. 16. The contention as has been, agitated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that at least the authority exercised power conferred under Section 11 of the Act, 1951, ought to have reduced the period of such disqualification but the question herein is that the reduction or the removal depends upon the conduct and merit of the factual aspect and there cannot be an order merely on sympathy. Herein, admittedly the petitioner has cared not to follow the statutory provision as contained under Section 78 of the Act, 1951 and without caring, the consequence or disqualification as provided under Section 10-A where there is no question of removal or reduction of the period of disqualification as because the said provision stipulates that if the Election Commission reached to the conclusion for removal or reduction of period of disqualification for reasons to be recorded for that, meaning thereby, if the contesting candidate will be able to satisfy the authority for a case of removal or reduction for the period of disqualification but as would appear from the order passed by the authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 11 of the Act, 1951, the petitioner has not only flouted the order by not suo-moto furnishing the account of election expenses but even after calling upon by the authority by not furnishing the details in due format and the manner prescribed under the Act. So far as the contention made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has not exercised its mind, the same is also having no foundation and as it would be apparent from the order passed by the authority under Section 11 of the Act, 1951, the same is based upon the well reasons and as such, it cannot be said to be mechanical. The other contention about passing of the order making it effective for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the order and since election was concluded on 23.12.2014 and within 30 days there from, the account of election expenses ought to have been furnished but having not been furnished and in that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the District Election Officer to report it immediately thereafter but instead of reporting forthwith, the reporting has been made after some delay. Even though as per Rule 89, it reflects as soon as may be after the expiration of the time specified under Section 78 i.e., after expiry of the period of 30 days from the conclusion of election, the reporting is to be made by the District Election Officer as to the lodging of the account of election expenses and the decision of the Election Commission thereon but the report has been submitted by the District Election Officer in term of the provision of sub rule 1 of Rule 89 on 15.05.2017 i.e., after the delay of almost after two years from the date of completion of 30 days which ended on 22.01.2015 and as such, this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the authority while passing the order under Section 11 of the Act, 1951, since the word starts under sub rule 1 of Rule 89 with “as soon as” may be after the expiration of the time specified under Section 78, meaning thereby, after completion of the period of 30 days from the conclusion of the election, a report is required to be made in pursuance to the provision as contained under sub rule 1 of Rule 89 of the Rules, 1961. 17. Even accepting the aforesaid argument to be true, then also no benefit can be arrived if the writ petition would be remitted on this ground for the reason that it is admitted case of the petitioner that he has not complied with the statutory requirements as provided under Section 78 of the Act, 1951. 18. It is the settled position of Law that as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. 18. It is the settled position of Law that as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 , wherein at para-14, it has been laid down by making reference of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrutunjay Pani Vrs. Narmada Bala Sasmal, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1353 , wherein an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of this own wrong). The said proposition has also been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Indore Development Authority Vrs. Shailendra and Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 412 as would be evident from para-143 and 167 by quoting the judgment rendered in the case of Mrutunjay Pani Vrs. Narmada Bala Sasmal (supra), it has been referred therein that no litigant can deprive the benefit of his own wrong. The doctrine commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet means convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. 19. This Court upon relying the aforesaid position of Law is of the view that the petitioner has not discharged his legal obligation as required to be discharged under the provision of Section 78 of the Act, 1951, therefore, if there is no laches on the part of the authority, no relief can be deprived there from. 20. The issue of reduction of the period of disqualification has also been agitated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner even for that the principle of commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet, is applicable. 21. In view thereof, the argument about the alleged laches committed on the part of the District Election Officer, is having no force. 22. This Court after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and considering the legal position as referred in the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.