Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Disqualification Of Anekal Town Municipal Council Members

The vacation bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose while considering the SLP assailing High Court's order dated May 30 and April 18 said,

"Issue notice. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it will be returnable on June 14 2022. Dasti in addition is permitted. It is made clear that the present order shall be confined to the petitioners only."

Appearing for the petitioner Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija submitted that the show cause notice dated 27/1/2020 was served on the petitioner and within 2 days the petitioners did submit their representation along with a statement of expenditure as required to be furnished. Despite the above, the election commission had passed an order disqualifying the petitioners on the basis of the report submitted by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru.

As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, the candidates had failed to submit the details of the election expenditure irrespective of serving show cause notice to them.

Senior Counsel further contended that the entire order passed by the Election Commission was on the premise that the petitioner didn't reply to the Show Cause Notice or make any representation as provided under rule 22 C (6) of the Karnataka Municipality Act and that the aspects of petitioner's replying have not been considered by the Single Judge or the Division Bench.

The members were disqualified on the ground that they had failed to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within 30 days.

Challenging the order of disqualification, they had approached the Karnataka High Court by way of a writ which was dismissed by the High Court.

While dismissing the writ, the bench on April 18, 2022 had said, "The principles of natural justice cannot be invoked as a mindless priest ritualistically chanting the mantra. Our legal sussed has evolved from the form of substance. Some prejudice because of violation of these principles has to be demonstrated after all the principles of natural justice are not immutable axioms. Even here, it is not shown as to how the impugned order would have been different, had the petitioners been heard in the matter by the State Election Commission, already the battle lines have been drawn up by the stand they have taken up in their reply to the notice"

Aggrieved with the dismissal of the writ, the members had approached the High Court by way of a writ appeal. However, while upholding the dismissal, the bench of Justices Ashok S Kinagi and Ritu Raj Awasthi in their order dated May 30, 2022 said,

"However, in the case of Balaji Vadav C.M. v. State Election Commission, Writ Petition No.26662/2013, decided on 13th July 2015, this Court has clearly held that once the law mandates a particular action to be taken by the State Election Commissioner, and once the law imposes a certain duty upon the elected candidate, the delay in submitting the election expenses cannot be condoned by this Court. Since the provisions of Section 16-B and Section 16-C of the Act is mandatory in nature, any deviation from the mandate of Section 16-B of the Act can be justified only under Section 16-C of the Act. The explanation offered by the appellants does not fulfil the requirement of Section 16-C of the Act."

Also Read: Karnataka Municipalities Act | Contesting Candidates Must Lodge Accounts Of Electoral Expenses With Returning Officer In 30 Days Of Result: High Court

Case Title: K Srinivas & Ors. v Karnataka State Election Commission| Diary No 17850 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order