In a writ petition, challenging the order for disqualification of a candidate, the Division bench of the High Court noted that losing the records of expenses is not a valid ground to not submit them, especially when it is just a bland statement that was made without any description and the candidate cannot be exempted based on this ground and thus, he was correctly disqualified.
Brief Facts:
Through this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside the order dated 18.05.2022, passed by the Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India. As per the order, the petitioner was declared to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State or Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of order as per the section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The petitioner contested the General Elections for Legislative Assembly from his resident district, Hisar in 2019. Elections were held and the results were declared, but the petitioner did not submit the details of the expenditure incurred by him as per section 77 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner contends that the concerned register of the expenditure along with other important documents was somehow lost and he had lodged a lost property report with the Police on the same day. Later, he also filed an application before the district election officer, Hisar for non-submission of election-related expenses due to the documents being lost. A notice was issued seeking a response as to why he should not be disqualified for non-submission of account details. The petitioner then submitted a response to it and later, an order was passed on 18.05.2022 holding the petitioner to be disqualified on the ground that no good reason or justification for failure to furnish the details of the expenses was provided by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petitioner has been filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner had informed about the loss of the documents as well as filed a police complaint, the impugned order is incorrect and unjustified. It is contended that the petitioner had duly applied before the District Election Officer, Hisar for non-submission of the election-related expenses while giving cogent reasons for the same, and the issuance of the order after such a long period is in itself unjustified.
Observations of the court:
The Court first referred to different relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and also to the important rules of the Conduct of elections Rules, 1961. And based on the applicable provisions, the court concluded that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to submit the entire details of the expenditure incurred in connection with the election by him as per the law.
In context to the current facts, the court observed that the petitioner has just made a mere bald statement that the entire documents and details regarding expenditure incurred were lost and merely lodging a police report cannot entitle the petitioner to be exempted from submission of the details of the expenses incurred by him. It is also noted that there are no details whatsoever regarding how the concerned register and documents were lost, it is just an assertion that they were lost. The Court then mentioned that any candidate contesting an Assembly election is expected to be vigilant and exercise due care and caution with respect to securing safe custody of the record regarding expenditure incurred, especially keeping in view the stringent provisions of law
The Court was of the view that the petitioner’s stance cannot be accepted because acceptance of the same would amount to giving a carte blanche to the candidates to circumvent the provisions of law regarding submission of accounts of election expenses incurred by them simply by stating that record is lost and ‘Lost Property Report’ has been lodged. The Court did not find any merit in the arguments of the petitioner and the order dated 18.05.2022 was found to be correct.
The Decision of the Court:
The Writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Pramod Bagri @ Parmod Kumar v. Election Commission of India and another
Coram: Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Suneet Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments