ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. By filing this writ, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby petitioner has been disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Nagar Panchayat, Rajgarh for a period of five years. Facts relevant for the disposal of the writ which He in a narrow compass need mention in brief.
2. Petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgarh, District Dhar on 28-12-1999.
3. On 24-4-2000, the State Election Commission (respondent No. 1) issued a show-cause notice (Annexure P-1) to petitioner inter alia saying therein that in terms of Section 32-B of M.P. Municipalities Act every contesting candidate at an election of President has to submit within 30 days with the officer notified by the State Election Commission an account of his election expenses. It was said that since petitioner failed to submit the accounts as per the requirement of Section 32-B hence, why an action of disqualification as contemplated under Section 32-C ibid be not taken against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to reply. The petitioner then on 22-5-2000 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) not only submitted the accounts to the Returning Officer as per the requirement of Section 32-B ibid and also filed reply to the show cause, on 31-7-2000, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Returning Officer in support of his submissions. The petitioner accordingly appeared. However by impugned order, dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) the State Election Commissioner declared the petitioner to be disqualified for the post of President and accordingly, debarred him from contesting election for a period of 5 years. This is what is contained in the impugned order:--
'No. F-67-127-2000-III-1595.-- Whereas, the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission is satisfied that the contesting candidates mentioned in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election of President of the Nagar Panchayat in column (2), held in (Month) December, (Year) 1999, has failed to lodge an account of his Election Expenses as required by the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997 of the State Election Commission issued thereunder, as shown in column (4) of the said Table;
And, whereas, after due notice, the explanation given by the said candidate for the delay in lodging the accounts of election expenditure has not been found by the Commission to be sufficient and satisfactory, and the Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for the said failure;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 32-C of the said Act, the State Election Commission hereby declares the person mentioned in column (3) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Member of the Nagar Panchayat mentioned in column (2) of the said Table for a period of 5 years from the date of this order.'
4. Notice was issued to respondents. Return has been filed. An attempt is made to support the impugned order contending inter alia that it confirms to the requirement of Section 32-B and 32-C of the Act.
5. Heard Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rawka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Bhargava, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. R. Bhargava, learned Counsel for respondents.
6. While attacking the legality of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first instance contended that the order impugned suffers from vice of arbitrariness. In the second place, learned Counsel contended that it is based on no reasoning, nor is based on any application of mind. In the third place, it is contended that petitioner has admittedly made out a sufficient cause, which is in fact accepted by the Collector when the Collector by his letter, dated 28-8-2000 (Annexure R-4) actually recommended the case of petitioner by observing that the cause stated in reply by the petitioner is genuine and bona fide hence, deserves acceptance. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order contending inter alia that no case for interference be made or called for once the order of disqualification is passed.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ, and while quashing of the impugned order, again direct the respondent No. 11 to decide the issue afresh.
8. The controversy in question centres round to Section 32-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act. Section 32-C ibid reads as under :--
'32-C. Disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses.-- If the State 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 State Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of the order.'
9. Perusal of aforequoted section clearly indicate that Election Commission is under legal obligation to record its satisfaction whether a person has failed to make out any good reason or justification for his failure in not submitting the accounts within time prescribed. In other words, if the person is required to make out a good reason or justify as to why and for what reasons, he could not submit the accounts in time, it is equally obligatory upon the State Election Commission to examine as to whether grounds, and/or cause stated in reply constitutes good reason. It requires application of judicial mind to the facts of each case and then a reasoned order as to why the reasons stated in reply by a concerned person do not make out a case of good reasons or why it makes out a case of good reasons. In either case, the order passed by the Election Commissioner must indicate its reasoning. The use of the word 'is satisfied' in Section 32-C ibid is significant. It contemplates judicial application of mind to be applied by Election Commissioner to the facts of each case and secondly, it must appear from the order that the satisfaction reached has some factual and legal basis. It involves an element of exercise of discretion and when one speaks of exercise of discretion it always means judicial discretion as is well known in judicial parlance. Since, the consequences of adverse order are quite disastrous because it results in vacation of the office secured by democratic way, the issue must be dealt with care and judiciously.
10. As observed supra, the impugned order which is conveyed to the petitioner quoted supra, does not contain any reasons, nor it exhibits that it has recorded satisfaction on facts as to why and on what basis the reasons stated by the petitioner in his reply and/or alongwith the submission of accounts though late do not constitute good reasons. Such order can not be said to be an order satisfying the requirement of Section 32-C ibid, nor it can be said to be an order passed in confirmity with the requirement of Section 32-C ibid. It is in fact in contravention of Section 32-C hence, is not legally sustainable.
11. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order, dated 12-10-2001 published in O.G. dated 19-10-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed by writ of certiorari. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 to again examine as to whether cause stated by the petitioner for late submission of accounts as per requirement of Section 32-B satisfies the test of good reason or justifies for the failure. While examining the issue, the respondent No. 1 will take into account all relevant facts, letter correspondence, relied upon by the petitioner, and the causes stated in reply by the petitioner and then a reasoned order shall be passed recording satisfaction one way or other. Let this be done within three months from the date of order.
C.C. within a week.