E. Dharma Rao, J.
1. Keshav Jadhav, the writ petitioner, who contested as an independent candidate for the State Legislative Assembly from 214-Maharajgunj Constituency, assails the correctness of the order No. 76/AP/LA/97, dated 8-2-1999 issued by the Election Commission of India, disqualifying him to be chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years, for his failure to lodge the account of election expenses, as required under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act) in this writ petition.
2. On receipt of report dated 18-1-1995 and 29-3-1995 from the District Election Officer, under Rule 89(1) of the Election of Conduct Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Rules), that all the contesting candidates from 214 Maharajgunj constituency have lodged their account of election expenses except the petitioner and 9 other candidates, a notice dated 9-1-1996 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 89(5) of the Rules, by the Election Commission calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under Section 10-A of the Act. In the said notice, the petitioner was also given further opportunity to submit his account of election expenses within 20 days of the receipt of the said notice before the District Election Officer and also to submit explanation for his failure to lodge the account earlier. The said notice was sent to the petitioner at the address given by him in his nomination papers and was served through the District Election Officer on the petitioner personally on 15-2-1996. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted his representation on 27-3-1996 stating that he has submitted the account of election expenses with the Returning Officer on the polling day itself. Thereafter the Commission forwarded copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 27-3-1996 to the District Election Officer and called for his supplementary report through letter dated 11-6-1997 and the District Election Officer vide his supplementary report dated 29-8-1998 and 11-11-1998 informed that the petitioner has not lodged his account of election expenses with the District Election Officer. In view of the above averments, the Commission was satisfied that the petitioner has failed to lodge his account of election expenses without any good reason or justification for such failure and, therefore, passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Act along with 64 other candidates from other constituencies for similar failure and thus the petitioner stood disqualified with effect from 8-2-1999 to 7-2-2002.
3. Assailing the validity of the abovesaid order, the present writ petition is filed contending that before passing the Impugned order disqualifying the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Act no notice was served, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's v. The Election Commissioner, New Delhi : [1978]2SCR272 , when the Election Commission is a Tribunal, while discharging quasi-judicial functions under the Act, it has to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. That apart, the Election Commission has not considered the case of the petitioner singularly, but it was considered along with a lot of 64 others and passed a common order, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. it is further contended that when the civil rights of the petitioner are affected, the Election Commission should have given personal hearing to the petitioner. In view of the above grounds, the learned Senior counsel contended that the order passed by the Election Commission isliable to be set aside.
4. After Rule Nisi was issued, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit stating that the show cause notice on the petitioner was served personally by the District Election Officer, Hyderabad, on 15-2-1996 and obtained acknowledgment from the petitioner in token of having received the notice. Section 10-A and provisions of the Rules does not contemplate providing personal hearing before passing the impugned prder. When the petitioner himself failed to comply the provisions of the Act, he cannot complain that impugned order effected his civil rights and that the order of disqualification is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
5. In view of this assertion made by the respondents, when the matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, following the judgment in W.P. No. 17338 of 1999 17-8-1999, this writ petition was dismissed on 20th August, 1999 upholding the stand taken by the Election Commission of India and the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order was found to be incorrect. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order of dismissal was made in his absence. Then the petitioner filed a review petition to review the order of the Division Bench dated 20th August, 1999 and to set aside the same and having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the review petition was allowed and the writ petition was restored for disposal afresh.
6. The writ petitioner filed his reply-affidavit admitting service of notice by the Election Commission before passing the impugned order and he expressed his apology for having averred in the writ affidavit that he has not received any notice, inasmuch as the notice was served more than 3 1/2 years ago and he had not preserved any records thereof and this fact has inadvertently slipped his mind and he has no intention to make false statement nor to mislead the Court and it is only due to passage of time. In view of the restoration of the writ petition by the same Division Bench, we proceed to hear this matter.
7. Mr. K. G. Kannabiran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on Mohinder Singh Gill'scase, submitted that mere issuance of notice to initiate action under Section 10-A of the Act is not sufficient, but a fair hearing must be given to the petitioner when the impugned order is affecting the civil rights of the petitioner. He further submitted that when the Election Commission is held to be a Tribunal, while discharging its quasi-judicial functions, it should have observed the principles of natural justice by giving fair hearing to the petitioner, that the Election Commission has considered the failure of 65 candidates in a lot and passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Reliance is further placed on a decision of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, . The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an authority acting judicially, quasi-judicially as also an administrative authority performing constitutional functions is duty-bound to comply with the principles of natural justice while adjudicating upon the rights of the parties and while considering the explanation or before taking any penal disciplinary action against a citizen by rejecting his explanation.
8. Relying on these judgments, the learned Senior Counsel contended that by virtue of the order passed by the Election Commission, the civil rights of the petitioner are affected and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, let us examine the provisions of the Act and Rules having a bearing on the subject-matter of this writ petition.
10. Part II, Chapter II of the Act deals with the qualifications for Membership of the State Legislatures. Section 7(b) of the Act defines the word 'disqualified' as disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. Section 8 deals with 'Disqualification on conviction for certain offences' enumerated in the section, which are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Section 10-A of the Act provides for 'disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses'. It says 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 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 order.
11. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with election expenses. Section 76 makes it clear that Chapter VIII shall apply only to the elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of a State. Section 77 obligates that every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, inclusive of both the dates, which shall contain all such particulars as may be prescribed. It further says that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.
12. Section 78 makes it mandatory on the part of every contesting candidate at an 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, lodge with the District Election Officer, an account of his election expenses which shall be a true copy of the account kept by him or his election agent under Section 77.
13. From a reading of the above provisions of law, it is the duty of each contesting candidate or his agent, from the date of nomination till the date of declaration of results, to maintain and lodge a true and correct account of election expenses, as prescribed under law and such expenditure should not exceed such amount as may be fixed by law.
14. The most important aspect of the matter is that the account of election expenses should be submitted to the District Election Officer within 30 days from the date of election of the return candidate. Therefore, the account of election expenses, submitted to any authority other than the District Election Officer is not valid. The Legislature in its wisdom prescribed the Authority to whom the account of election expenseshas to be submitted viz., the District Election Officer.
15. Now adverting to the Rules, Part VIII deals with the Election Expenses. According to Rule 86(1), the account of election expenses to be kept by a candidate or his election agent under Section 77 shall contain the following particulars in respect of each item of expenditure from day to day, namely :
(a) the date on which the expenditure was incurred or authorized;
(b) the nature of the expenditure (as for example, travelling, postage) or printing and the like);
(c) The amount of the expenditure;
(i) the amount paid;
(ii) the amount outstanding;
(d) the date of payment;
(e) the name and address of the payee;
(f) the serial number of vouchers, in case of amount paid;
(g) the serial number of bills, if any, in case of amount outstanding;
(h) the name and address of the person to whom the amount outstanding is payable.
Sub-rule 2 hereof obligates the candidates to obtain voucher for every item of expenditure unless from the nature of the case, such as postage, travel by rail and the like, it is not practicable to obtain a voucher. Sub- Rule 3 obligates that all the vouchers shall be lodged along with the account of election expenses. Further Rule 87 contemplates issuance of notice by the District Election Officer for the inspection of election expenditure within two days from the date of account of election expenses has been lodged by a candidate under Section 78 indicating the date of which the account has been lodged; the name of the candidate and the time and place at which such account can be inspected. Rule 88 enables the candidates or any person to get copy of the expenditure account or part thereof, on payment of fee of Re. 1/-. Rule 89 obligates the District Election Officer to submit report to the Election Commission soon after the expiration of the time specified in Section 78 for lodging of account of election expenses with his opinion and it further obligates the District Election Officer to publish a copy of the said account by affixing the same to the Notice Board. After receipt of the report, the Election Commission shall consider the same and decide whether any contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within time and in the manner required by the Act and Rules and where the Election Commission decides that the contesting candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within time and in the manner required by the Act and Rules, it shall by notice in writing call upon the candidate to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under Section 10-A of the Act for such failure. Further 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 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. 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; 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 no good reason or justification for the failure to lodge his account, it shall declare him to be disqualified under Section 10-A of the Act for a period of three years from the date of the order, and cause the order to be published in the Official Gazette.
16. The other rules have no bearing on the subject-matter of this writ, therefore, need not be looked into.
17. From a reading of the above provisions of law, it is clear that the contesting candidate or his agent has to maintain account of election expenses and that there is a procedure prescribed to submit the account of election expenses by the candidates under Section 78 of the Act within 30 days from the date of election to the District Election Officer. After submission of the account of Election Expenses, the District Election Officer is empowered to inspect the accounts after giving notice to the candidate or his agent or any person authorized by him, and after payment of required fee, he is entitled to get a copy of the inspection report and thereafter he has to forward the same to the Election Commission a report with regardto the election expenses that has been submitted by the candidate as required under the Rules. After receipt of the report from the District Election Officer, the Election Commission shall consider whether the contesting candidate has submitted the account within time and in the manner required by the Act and the Rules. If contesting candidate has failed to lodge any account of the election expenses within time and in the manner required by the Act and the Rules, by notice in writing, the Election Commission may call upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under Section 10A of the Act for the failure. After receiving such notice, the contesting candidate may within twenty days of such receipt may submit representation in writing to the Election Commission and 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, thereafter 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 with such comments as he wishes to make thereon. Thus, the Election Commission was given discretionary power, after considering the representation submitted by the candidate and the comments made by the District Election Officer, if necessary to conduct enquiry, if it thinks fit, subject to the satisfaction 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 10-A for a period of three years from the date of order and cause the order to be published in the Official Gazette.
18. That is the legal position prevailing over the subject-matter; let us examine the facts of the case on hand. The petitioner has not properly complied with the abovesaid provision of the Election Laws and Rules. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri K.G. Kannabiran, that the petitioner who was contesting candidate, has filed his account of the Election expenses regularly to the third respondent i.e. the Returning Officer in two days from 12-11-1994 onwards, as per the Memo No. 3357/Election/ TC 6/94 issued by the District Election Officer at the end of the poll on 1-12-1994 within the time-limit of 30 days and obtained acknowledgment from respondent No. 3, thus he strictly followed the Rules laid down by law and the orders issued from time totime by the respondent No. 1. As a matter of principle and his aim in participating in the elections is to restore respect to law and democratic norms and, therefore, it is clear from the averments that the petitioner has submitted accounts of election expenses to the Returning Officer, but not to the District Election Officer, as contemplated under the provisions of Law and Rules. The submission of account of election expenses to a Returning Officer is different from submission of Account of Election Expenses to the District Election Officer under Section78 of the Act. Failure to submit account of election expenses under Section78 of the Act, does not absolve the petitioner from his statutory obligation. Consequently, the District Election Officer has submitted report to the Election Commission that he has not received any statement of accounts of election expenses from the petitioner along with other candidates specified in the proceedings.
19. On receipt of the said report and considering the same, the Election Commission of India, issued show cause notice, as contemplated under Rule 89(5) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under Section 10-A of the Act. Even after receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner has failed to submit representation in writing, within twenty days to the Election Commission and sending a copy of such representation to the District Election Officer with a complete account of his election expenses. As stated earlier, the petitioner has submitted the account of Election Expenses to the Returning Officer, but he has neither submitted a fresh account of the election expenses within twenty days of the receipt of notice in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 89 of the Rules to the Election Commissioner or marked a copy to the District Election Officer though he stated that he has submitted after obtaining from the Returning Officer. Therefore, the petitioner, who is a contesting candidate, himself failed to submit the account of election expenses, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act discussed supra. Although the petitioner has failed to discharge the statutory duty of submitting account of election expenses within 30 days from the date of election, yet he could not even utilize the second opportunity provided under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 89, as Sub-rule (8) of Rule 89 empowers the Election Commission after considering the representation submit-ted 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, therefore, passed the impugned order disqualifying him under Section 10-A of the Act for a period of three years from the date of order.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we think such enquiry need not be conducted in the instant case as contemplated under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 89 of the Rules, for the reason that the candidate himself has failed to submit account of election expenses as required under Law to the Competent Authority i.e. the District Election Officer or a representation with account of Election expenses after receipt of show cause notice to the Election Commission and copy to the District Election Officer. Therefore, the question of conducting any independent inquiry and giving opportunity to comply with the principles of natural justice does not arise, in view of involvement of civil rights of the petitioner, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel. The incomplete representation submitted by the petitioner and the supplementary comments made by the District Election Officer, per se are sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the Election Commission to disqualify the petitioner for a period of three years without conducting any enquiry. The discussion above also repels the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was considered in a lot without complying the statutory principles.
21. We are fortified in our View by the decision in Chanan Singh Sidhu's case which has taken the view that disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses culminating in order by the Election Commission does not involve punishment or stigma and it need not be reasoned one nor affording opportunity to the candidate is necessary inasmuch as the candidate incurs disqualification automatically on his failure to lodge the same. It is further held, there is no question of Imposition of any punishment or stigma on the basis of any disciplinary proceedings against the candidate, as the disqualification contemplated under Section 10-A of the Act is a necessary consequence flowing from his failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the stipulated period and in the pre-scribed manner. In fact, the action of declaring that the candidate is disqualified is not anadjudication of any dispute but it is automatic result flowing from the non-observance of the statutory provisions, which stand incorporated in the Act of the Parliament. Therefore, it is not the Election Commission disqualified the candidate, but he has himself incurred the disqualification under the statute. If a citizen wants to contest the election for Parliament or State Assembly, he is supposed to comply with the Election Laws and by acts of omissions and commissions, a disqualification follows, then only he is to blame and none else. Therefore, all that is required to be done by the Election Commission by exercising jurisdiction under Section 10-A is to pass an order inviting the attention of the candidate to the statutory provisions of Section 10-A which are mandatory in nature and no separate reasons are required to be recorded in the order. The Bench further held that the reason for disqualification is inbuilt in the order of disqualification issued under Section 10-A of the Act itself, that is failure to lodge the account of the election expenses, beyond that the Parliament never intended the Election Commission to record any reasons. This would be amply clear from the language employed by the Legislature in the very next Section i.e. Section 11, where a duty has been cast upon the Election Commission to record the reasons for the purpose of removing any disqualification or for reducing the period of such disqualification. Therefore, the Parliament was fully alive and aware of the situation that thousands of contesting candidates who failed to lodge account of election expenses would necessarily and inevitably incur the disqualification on account of their failure to lodge election expenses under Section 10-A of the Act and if for some cogent and valid reasons, shown by those candidates, the Election Commission later on decides to remove the disqualification or reduce it, it will have to record its reasons.
22. Insofar as the contention of the learned senior counsel that the principles of natural justice were not followed, the Bench further held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts and Tribunals in the country and by now it has become axiomatic and an authority acting judicially, quasi-judicially as also an administrative authority performing constitutional functions is duty-bound to comply with the principles of natural justice while adjudicating upon the rights of the parties and while considering the explanation or before taking any penal or disciplinary action against a citizen by rejecting his explanation. As has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, : (1970)IILLJ284SC if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any law or of the principles of natural justice, then the Courts cannot ignore the authority and read into the concerned provisions the principles of natural justice.
23. In the present case, there is no question of imposition of any punishment or stigma on the basis of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, as the disqualification contemplated by Section 10-A of the Act is a necessary consequence flowing from the failure of the petitioner himself from lodging the account of election expenses within the stipulated period and in the prescribed manner.
24. Therefore, we cannot appreciate the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that by not giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner by the Election Commission before passing the impugned order is affecting his civil rights. As stated earlier, the petitioner himself has failed to comply the statutory provisions of Act and Rules and failed to file the account of election expenses within time and in the manner prescribed by law. Therefore, we rejected this contention.
25. The Division Bench in Chanan Singh Sidhu's case has held that while passing an order under Section 11 of the Act, reducing period of disqualification, a reasoned order is necessary. Therefore, without disturbing the impugned order, we however, consider it appropriate to leave it open to the petitioner to make an application to the Election Commission with necessary information, as contemplated under the provisions of law, to consider his case in terms of Section 11 to re-duce the period of disqualification. In the event of the petitioner making such application, the Election Commission shall pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, according to law.
26. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.