LAXMIBAIversusTHE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.

880                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 880               [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A                                 LAXMIBAI
                                        v.
                    THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 2020)
B                            FEBRUARY 14, 2020
             [A. M. KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA AND
                     DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Election
C     of Gram Panchayat – Appellant elected as member of village
      Panchayat – Disqualification of appellant on account of non-
      submission of election expenses within the period prescribed – Held:
      A perusal of s.14B shows that the State Election Commission is to
      be satisfied as to whether a person has no good reason or
      justification for the failure to furnish account of election expenses
D     – Secondly in terms of sub-section (2) for the reasons to be recorded,
      the disqualification under sub-section (1) can be removed or the
      period of disqualification can be reduced – In the instant case,
      explanation of appellant that he was advised bed rest on account
      of hypertension and diabetes which caused unintended delay in
E     furnishing election expenses was not accepted – Collector passed
      order disqualifying the appellant for a period of five years to be
      member of Gram Panchayat – Appeal dismissed for the reason that
      the medical certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority –
      High Court while disposing of writ petition held that copy of medical
F     certificate tendered by the appellant had no particulars such as
      name, diagnosis, date and reference number and the said certificate
      was issued by the private hospital bearing only a stamp of doctor
      and the said document cannot be relied upon and if the authorities
      did not accept it, there was no error in the said view – There is no
      reason to take a different view than the view affirmed by the High
G     Court.
            Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Plea of
      appellant was that there was delay of 15 days in submitting the
      election expenses and, therefore, disqualification for a period of

H
                                       880
      LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                            881


five years was disproportionate to the default committed by her –         A
Held: s.14B empowers the Election Commission to pass a just order
of disqualification – The extent of period of disqualification has to
be in proportion to the default – In the instant case, the order of
disqualification for a period of five years was without taking into
consideration the extent of default committed by the appellant –          B
Such mechanical exercise of power without any adequate reasons,
rendered the order of disqualification for a period of five years as
illegal and untenable – Consequently, the order passed by the
Collector and subsequent orders in appeal and in the writ petition
are set aside in part to the extent of prescribing disqualification for
a period of five years – Matter remitted to the Collector to take into    C
consideration the period of delay/default, the purport for which
the election expenses are sought to be furnished and that the order
of disqualification operates from the date of the order including
delay in passing the order of disqualification – Election laws.
      Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: s.14B – Whether           D
provision of s.14B, mandatory or directory – Held: In s.14B, there
is no prohibitive or negative expressions used as it empowers the
Election Commission to pass a just order of disqualification – Sub-
section (1) of s.14B empowers the State Election Commission to pass
an order of disqualification of a candidate, if the candidate fails to    E
lodge account of election expenses for lack of good reason or without
any justification – Such satisfaction is required to be recorded by
the Election Commission – Since authority is vested with power to
reduce the period of disqualification, therefore, makes the provision
directory.
                                                                          F
      Maharashatra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961: s.15B – Elections of Panchayat Samiti – Disqualification of
appellant for contesting elections for the period of five years on
account of non-submission of election expenses within period
prescribed – Meanwhile, elections of Gram Panchayat were notified
                                                                          G
and appellant submitted his nomination for the post of Sarpanch –
Objection against it was rejected by the Returning Officer and
appellant was duly elected to the post of Sarpanch – Returning
Officer held that disqualification was applicable only for the

                                                                          H
882            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     elections of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis and not for
      elections of Gram Panchayat – Order of Returning Officer rejecting
      objection challenged before High Court – Writ petition also filed
      by appellant challenging disqualification order passed by Collector
      – High Court dismissed writ petition of the appellant while writ
B     petition filed by objector was partly allowed by setting aside the
      order passed by Returning officer rejecting the objections raised
      by him – On appeal, held: Art.243-O of the Constitution of India
      provides that no election to any panchayats shall be called in
      question except by an election petition presented to such authority
      and in such manner as provided for by or under any law made
C     under the legislature of the State – The dispute in these appeals did
      not pertain to election to either House of the Parliament but to a
      local body – The constitutional bar is contained in Art.243-O of the
      Constitution of India in furtherance of which s.15A was inserted in
      the year 1994 – s.10A of the 1959 Act and s.9A of the 1961 Act
D     read with Arts.243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with Art.324 of
      the Constitution of India – The remedy of an aggrieved person
      accepting or rejecting nomination of a candidate is by way of an
      election petition in view of the bar created under s.15A of the 1959
      Act – The said Act is a complete Code providing machinery for
      redressal to the grievances pertaining to election as contained in
E
      s.15 of the 1959 Act – High Court though exercises extraordinary
      jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India but such
      jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised in
      view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available
      and more so exercise restraint in terms of Art.243-O of the
F     Constitution of India – Once alternate machinery is provided by
      the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate
      remedy – It is a prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court
      not to interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration
      of the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy
G     contemplated by the statute – In view of this, writ petition should
      not have been entertained by the High Court – However, the order
      of the High Court that the appellant has not furnished the election
      expenses incurred on the date of election did not warrant any
      interference – Constitution of India – Arts.243K, 243O and 324 –
      Election-Laws.
H
      LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                           883


       Interpretation of Statutes: Whether a provision is mandatory      A
or directory – Prohibitive or negative words are ordinarily indicative
of mandatory nature of the provision – Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1959 – s.14B.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                                         B
      HELD: 1. The purity and transparency in election process
does not give unbridled and arbitrary power to the Election
Commission to pass any whimsical order without examining the
nature of default. The extent of period of disqualification has to
be in proportion to the default. The Election Commission has to
keep in mind that by such process, an election of duly elected           C
candidate representing collective will of the voters of the
constituency is being set at naught. [Para 18][893-B-D]
      Union of India & Ors. v. A.K. Pandey (2009) 10 SCC
      552 : [2009] 14 SCR 528; Chief Executive Officer,
      Krishna District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v.                       D
      K. Hanumantha Rao (2017) 2 SCC 528 – relied on
      D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC
      455; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC
      172 : [1999] 3 SCR 977; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v.
      State of Punjab & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 260 : [2001] 3                 E
      SCR 1146; Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector,
      Raigad & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 407 : [2012] 3 SCR 775
      – Distinguished.
       2. The disqualification of a candidate for five years passed
under Section 14B of the 1959 Act leads to disqualification for          F
future election as well. Though, Section 14B of the 1959 Act
empowers the Commission to disqualify a candidate for a period
not exceeding five years from the date of the order, but to pass
an order of disqualification for five years, which may disqualify
him to contest the next elections as well requires to be supported
by cogent reasons and not merely on the fact of not furnishing of        G
election expenses. The order of disqualification for a period of
five years is without taking into consideration the extent of default
committed by the appellant and that the will of people is being
interfered with in the wholly perfunctory way. Such mechanical
                                                                         H
884            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     exercise of power without any adequate reasons, though required
      to be recorded, renders the order of disqualification for a period
      of five years as illegal and untenable. It is abdication of power
      which is coupled with a duty to impose just period of
      disqualification. Therefore, though the appellant could be
      disqualified for a period upto five years, but such period of
B
      disqualification must be supported by tangible reasons lest it
      would border on being disproportionate. [Para 20][895-C-F]
            3. The Collector shall pass the order afresh in respect of
      period of disqualification in accordance with law preferably within
      a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
C     judgment. The period of disqualification, if any, will be operative
      from the date of the order passed earlier by the Collector on
      9th August, 2018 and any elections held as a consequence of the
      order of disqualification will abide the final order to be passed by
      the Collector. [Para 21] [895-H; 896-A-B]
D           4. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment inserted Part IX in
      the Constitution of India. Article 243-O of the Constitution of
      India as inserted provides that no election to any panchayats shall
      be called in question except by an election petition presented to
      such authority and in such manner as provided for by or under
E     any law made under the legislature of the State. In terms of such
      constitutional provisions, Section 15A was inserted by
      Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1994. The dispute in the present
      appeals does not pertain to election to either House of the
      Parliament but to a local body. The constitutional bar is contained
      in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India in furtherance of
F     which Section 15A was inserted in the year 1994. [Paras 38,
      39][901-E-F; 902-A-C]
            Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari
            Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 236 : [2010]
            13 SCR 820 – held inapplicable.
G
            Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and
            Others 2018 (4) Mh LJ 911; P. Punnuswami v. The
            Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 : [1952] SCR 218;
            Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election
            Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 :
H
      LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                         885


      [1978] 2 SCR 272; S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan &              A
      Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 572 : [1988] 2 SCR 759; Malam
      Singh v. The Collector, Sehore AIR 1971 MP 195;
      Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC
      383 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 223 – referred to.
      5. Section 10A of the 1959 Act and Section 9A of the 1961        B
Act read with Articles 243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with
Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of an
aggrieved person accepting or rejecting nomination of a candidate
is by way of an election petition in view of the bar created under
Section 15A of the 1959 Act. The said Act is a complete code
providing machinery for redressal to the grievances pertaining         C
to election as contained in Section 15 of the 1959 Act. The High
Court though exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India but such jurisdiction is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised in view of the
fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available and more      D
so exercise restraint in terms of Article 243-O of the Constitution
of India. Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute,
the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. It
is a prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court not to
interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration of
the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy    E
contemplated by the statute. In view of the above, the writ petition
should not have been entertained by the High Court. However,
the order of the High Court that the appellant has not furnished
the election expenses incurred on the date of election does not
warrant any interference. [Para 43][905-A-E]                           F
                      Case Law Reference
[2009] 14 SCR 528              relied on              Para 10
(1976) 2 SCC 455               distinguished          Para 14
[1999] 3 SCR 977               distinguished          Para 15          G
[2001] 3 SCR 1146              distinguished          Para 16
[2012] 3 SCR 775               distinguished          Para 17
(2017) 2 SCC 528               relied on              Para 19
                                                                       H
886                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     [2010] 13 SCR 820                  held inapplicable        Para 32
      [1952] SCR 218                     referred to              Para 37
      [1978] 2 SCR 272                   referred to              Para 40
      [1988] 2 SCR 759                   referred to              Para 41
B     [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 223            referred to              Para 42
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1622
      of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition (C) No.
C
      13642 of 2018.
                                         With
                Civil Appeal Nos. 1623-1625, 1626 of 2020.
            Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Yogesh
D     Kolte, Mahesh P. Shinde, Shakul R. Ghatole, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,
      Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Shankar Narayanan, M. Y. Deshmukh,
      Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Vasim Siddiqui,
      Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Sachin Patil, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Bharti Tyagi,
      R.C. Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                HEMANT GUPTA, J.
                Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 16837 of 2019
                1. Leave granted.
F
             2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 10th
      December, 2018 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
      against an order of disqualification under Section 14B of the Maharashtra
      Village Panchayats Act, 19591 on account of non-submission of election
G     expenses within the period prescribed.
             3. The election of Gram Panchayat, Mugat, Taluk Mudkhed,
      District Nanded were held on 1st November, 2015. The results were
      declared on 4th November, 2015. The appellant was elected as a Member

H     1   for short, ‘1959 Act’
       LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                887
                   [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of Village Panchayat. The appellant was required to furnish election           A
expenses within 30 days in the manner prescribed by the State Election
Commission in terms of Section 14B of the 1959 Act. The appellant
submitted expenses with delay of 15 days. The appellant was served
with a show cause notice on 3rd March, 2016 as to why she should not
be disqualified on account of failure to submit the election expenses.
                                                                               B
The appellant submitted her explanation that due to ill-health there was
a delay of 15 days in furnishing of details of expenses and that delay
may be condoned.
      4. The Collector as a delegate of the State Election Commission
passed an order dated 9th August, 2018 disqualifying the appellant for a
period of five years to be a member of Gram Panchayat only for the             C
reason that the appellant has not submitted election expenses within
time.
      5. The appeal against such order was dismissed on 19th November,
2018 by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad for the
reason that the medical certificate is not issued by the Competent             D
Authority. The said order was challenged before the Writ Court wherein
the High Court held as under:
      “5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered a copy of
      medical certificate on which petitioner had relied upon. The same
      is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. This document      E
      has no particulars whatsoever, such as name, diagnosis, date and
      reference number etc. There is nothing mentioned. This certificate
      issued by a private hospital bears only a stamp of the doctor. It is
      stated that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension, diabetes
      and was advised bed rest. This document, on the face of it, cannot       F
      be relied upon. If the authorities have not accepted such a
      document, there is no error in the view taken by them.”
        6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the
appellant was advised bed rest on account of hypertension and diabetes,
which fact caused unintended delay of furnishing of election expenses.         G
It is also argued that the appellant is duly elected member of Panchayat
and that an order of disqualification can be passed if the candidate fails
to show any good reason or justification for the failure to submit accounts.
It is also submitted that there is no finding that the accounts furnished,
though with delay of fifteen days, are not proper or not in accordance
                                                                               H
888             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     with applicable rules or instructions. The order of disqualifying her for
      five years, in fact, jeopardises her right to contest election until 8th August,
      2023 (i.e. from the date of the order passed on 9 th August, 2018).
             7. It is argued that since the appellant is a duly elected
      representative of Village Mugat and has been elected in a democratic
B     process, the disqualification for a period of five years without taking into
      consideration the extent of default and the consequences of
      disqualification renders the order of disqualification as wholly
      disproportionate to the deficiency alleged against the appellant. It is argued
      that an order of disqualification should have been passed without delay
      and not nearly after 3 years of the elections. It is further argued that
C     disqualification for a period of five years is the maximum period of
      disqualification whereas in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14B of
      the 1959 Act, the disqualification can be for a period less than five years.
      Therefore, the authority was expected to consider the nature and extent
      of default and consequent period of disqualification, which should be
D     commensurate with the default found by such authority. The relevant
      Section 14B of the 1959 Act reads thus:
                “14B. Disqualification by State Election Commission. –
                (1) If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person, -

E               (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within
                the time and in the manner required by the State Election
                Commission, and
                (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the
                State Election Commission may, by an order published in the
F               Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person
                shall be disqualified for being a member of panchayat or for
                contesting an election for being a member for a period of five
                years from the date of this order.
                (2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be
                recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or
G
                reduce the period of any such disqualification.”
             8. A bare perusal of Section 14B of the 1959 Act shows that the
      State Election Commission is to be satisfied as to whether a person has
      no good reason or justification for the failure to furnish account of election
      expenses. Secondly, in terms of sub-section (2), for the reasons to be
H
         LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                              889
                     [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

recorded, the disqualification under sub-section (1) can be removed or         A
the period of disqualification can be reduced.
       9. The Collector passed an order on 9th August, 2018 not accepting
the explanation for the delayed submission of the election expenses. In
appeal, learned Additional Divisional Commissioner found that the medical
certificate is not issued by the Competent Authority and the matter has        B
been verified by the Collector. The appellant has not submitted the election
expenses within stipulated time, therefore, there is no error in the order
passed by the Collector. The High Court in the writ petition found that
the medical certificate has no particulars whatsoever such as name,
diagnosis, date and reference number etc. The certificate is issued by a
private hospital and bears only a stamp of doctor. Such document was           C
not accepted as reasonable explanation for not submitting the election
expenses within time. We find that the explanation in delayed submission
of election expenses has not been accepted. Therefore, we do not find
any reason to take a different view than the view affirmed by the High
Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant.                             D
       10. However, the question which arises is that whether delay of
15 days necessarily follows the disqualification for a period of five years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of
disqualification was passed by the Collector approximately 3 years after
the election and there were only two dates of hearing for more than two        E
years apart. Therefore, inordinate delay in pronouncing the disqualification
order on the part of the Collector severely prejudices the appellant as
the period of disqualification starts from the date of the order. However,
the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon judgment of this
Court reported as Union of India & Ors. v. A.K. Pandey2 to contend
that the mandate of Section 14B of the 1959 Act is disqualification and        F
the word ‘may’ have to be read as ‘shall’.
       11. We do not find any merit in the argument that Section 14B of
the 1959 Act is mandatory. Sub-section (1) of Section 14B of the said
Act empowers the State Election Commission to pass an order of
disqualification of a candidate, if the candidate fails to lodge account of    G
election expenses for lack of good reason or without any justification.
Such satisfaction is required to be recorded by the Election Commission.
The disqualification for a period of five years is not necessary
consequence of merely not filing account of election expenses. Still
2   (2009) 10 SCC 552                                                          H
890                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     further, subsection (2) empowers the State Election Commission for
      reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under sub-section
      (1) or reduce the period of any such disqualification. Since authority is
      vested with power to reduce the period of disqualification, therefore,
      makes the provision directory.
B           12. This Court in A.K. Pandey held that the prohibitive or negative
      words are ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision
      although said fact alone is not conclusive. This Court held as under:-
               “ 15. The principle seems to be fairly well settled that The Court
               has to examine carefully the purpose of such provision and the
C              consequences that may follow from non-observance thereof. If
               the context does not show nor demands otherwise, the text of a
               statutory provision couched in a negative form ordinarily has to
               be read in the form of command. When the word “shall” is
               followed by prohibitive or negative words, the legislative intention
               of making the provision absolute, peremptory and imperative
D              becomes loud and clear and ordinarily has to be inferred as such.
               ……………….”
             13. In the present case, there is no prohibitive or negative
      expressions used in Section 14B of the 1959 Act, as it empowers the
      Election Commission to pass a just order of disqualification. Such provision
E     cannot be treated to be mandatory period of five years in view of plain
      language of the Statute.
             14. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the
      disqualification is disproportionate to the default committed by the
      appellant. In a judgment reported as D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan &
F     Ors.3, it was held that the election is a politically sacred public act, not of
      one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole
      constituency. The challenge in the said appeal was to an election on the
      allegation of corrupt practices. This Court held that the valuable verdict
      of the people at the polls must be given due respect and should not be
G     disregarded on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations. The
      onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for
      setting aside an election. The election results cannot be lightly brushed
      aside in election disputes. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the
      purity and sobriety of the elections by ensuring that the candidates do

H
      3   (1976) 2 SCC 455
         LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                   891
                     [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

not secure the valuable votes of the people by undue influence, fraud,              A
communal propaganda, bribery or other corrupt practices as laid down
in the Act. The Court held as under:
         “3. Mr P. Bassi Reddy learned Counsel for the appellant has
         assailed before us the findings of the High Court on Issues 7, 26
         and 27 as these were the only issues which affected the appellant.         B
         Mr B. Shiv Sankar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent
         has endeavoured to support the judgment of the High Court by
         submitting that the findings arrived at by the High Court were
         based on a correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and
         the facts and circumstances of the record. In a democracy such
         as ours, the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and          C
         sacred nature of the electoral process must be preserved and
         maintained. The valuable verdict of the people at the polls must
         be given due respect and candour and should not be disregarded
         or set at naught on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations
         or on evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character. It          D
         is well settled that the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner
         to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. In our
         country election is a fairly costly and expensive venture and the
         Representation of the People Act has provided sufficient
         safeguards to make the elections fair and free. In these
         circumstances, therefore, election results cannot be lightly brushed       E
         aside in election disputes. At the same time it is necessary to
         protect the purity and sobriety of the elections by ensuring that
         the candidates do not secure the valuable votes of the people by
         undue influence, fraud, communal propaganda, bribery or other
         corrupt practices as laid down in the Act.”                                F
       15. This Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab v. Baldev
Singh4 held that issue of removal of an elected office bearer has serious
repercussion. It implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part
of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. It
was held that severer the punishment, greater care has to be taken to               G
see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed.
      16. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.5, this
Court has held that holding and enjoying an office, discharging related
4   (1999) 6 SCC 172
5   (2001) 6 SCC 260                                                                H
892                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the returned candidate but
      also his constituency or electoral college. Therefore, the procedure
      prescribed must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made
      out, there cannot be any justification for his removal.
             17. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad &
             6
B     Ors. , this Court held that an elected official cannot be permitted to be
      removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed
      by law. Where the statutory provision has very serious repercussions, it
      implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority
      to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. It was held as under:
C                “35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because
                 he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has
                 serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared
                 disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period,
                 but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to
                 be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post
D                is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right
                 to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to
                 the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal (vide
                 Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 1982 SC
                 983] , Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily
E                [(1992) 4 SCC 80 : AIR 1993 SC 2042] and Ram Beti v. District
                 Panchayat Raj Adhikari [(1998) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1998 SC
                 1222] ).
                 36. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised
                 to the effect that an elected member can be removed in exceptional
F                circumstances giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions
                 and holding the enquiry, meeting the requirement of principles of
                 natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend
                 himself, for the reason that removal of an elected person casts
                 stigma upon him and takes away his valuable statutory right. Not
                 only the elected office-bearer but his constituency/electoral college
G                is also deprived of representation by the person of their choice.
                 37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold office for the term for
                 which he has been elected and he can be removed only on a
                 proved misconduct or any other procedure established under law

H     6   (2012) 4 SCC 407
         LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                 893
                     [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

         like “no confidence motion”, etc. The elected official is accountable    A
         to its electorate as he has been elected by a large number of
         voters and it would have serious repercussions when he is removed
         from the office and further declared disqualified to contest the
         election for a further stipulated period.”
       18. The judgments relate to the procedure to be followed in election       B
petition and proof of allegation but such principles are to be followed in
the case of inflicting punishment of disqualification, which has far serious
implication almost similar to indulging in corrupt practices in an election.
The purity and transparency in election process does not give unbridled
and arbitrary power to the Election Commission to pass any whimsical
order without examining the nature of default. The extent of period of            C
disqualification has to be in proportion to the default. The Election
Commission has to keep in mind that by such process, an election of
duly elected candidate representing collective will of the voters of the
constituency is being set at naught.
       19. In a judgment reported as Chief Executive Officer, Krishna             D
District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. K. Hanumantha Rao7, this Court
held that the limited power of judicial review to interfere with the penalty
is based on the doctrine of proportionality which is a concept of judicial
review. If the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the judicial
conscience, the court would interfere. The relevant extract reads as              E
under:
         “7.2 Even otherwise, the aforesaid reason could not be a valid
         reason for interfering with the punishment imposed. It is trite that
         Courts, while exercising their power of judicial review over such
         matters, do not sit as the appellate authority. Decision qua the         F
         nature and quantum is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority.
         It is not the function of the High Court to decide the same. It is
         only in exceptional circumstances, where it is found that the
         punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority/employer
         is wholly disproportionate, that too to an extent that it shakes the
         conscience of the Court, that the Court steps in and interferes.         G
         7.2.1 No doubt, the award of punishment, which is grossly in
         excess to the allegations, cannot claim immunity and remains open
         for interference under limited scope for judicial review. This limited

7   (2017) 2 SCC 528                                                              H
894      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     power of judicial review to interfere with the penalty is based on
      the doctrine of proportionality which is a well-recognised concept
      of judicial review in our jurisprudence. The punishment should
      appear to be so disproportionate that it shocks the judicial
      conscience. [See State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad, (2014)
      7 SCC 223]. It would also be apt to extract the following
B
      observations in this behalf from the judgment of this Court in
      Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain, (2013) 10 SCC
      106: (SCC pp. 110-12, paras 8-10)
         “8. The order of the appellate authority while having a relook
         at the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the
C        punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable
         or not. If the appellate authority is of the opinion that the case
         warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed
         by the disciplinary authority. Such a power which vests with
         the appellate authority departmentally is ordinarily not available
D        to the Court or a tribunal. The Court while undertaking judicial
         review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion
         on reappraisal of facts. (See UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
         v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5 SCC 775). In exercise of power
         of judicial review, however, the Court can interfere with the
         punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or
E        is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial
         review is permissible and interference is available only when
         the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack
         of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the
         Court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate,
F        cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the
         departmental authorities.
                xx               xx                xx
         10. An imprimatur to the aforesaid principle was accorded by
         this Court as well in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987)
G        4 SCC 611. Speaking for the Court, Venkatachaliah, J. (as he
         then was) emphasising that “all powers have legal limits”
         invoked the aforesaid doctrine in the following words : (SCC
         p. 620, para 25)
            ‘25. … The question of the choice and quantum of
H           punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the
       LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                 895
                   [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

             Court Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and        A
             the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It
             should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock
             the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence
             of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept
             of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect
                                                                                B
             which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the
             Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence
             is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would
             not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity
             are recognised grounds of judicial review.”
       20. The disqualification of a candidate for five years passed under      C
Section 14B of the 1959 Act leads to disqualification for future election
as well. Though, Section 14B of the 1959 Act empowers the Commission
to disqualify a candidate for a period not exceeding five years from the
date of the order, but to pass an order of disqualification for five years,
which may disqualify him to contest the next elections as well requires         D
to be supported by cogent reasons and not merely on the fact of not
furnishing of election expenses. We find that the order of disqualification
for a period of five years is without taking into consideration the extent
of default committed by the appellant and that the will of people is being
interfered with in the wholly perfunctory way. We find that such
mechanical exercise of power without any adequate reasons, though               E
required to be recorded, renders the order of disqualification for a period
of five years as illegal and untenable. It is abdication of power which is
coupled with a duty to impose just period of disqualification. Therefore,
though the appellant could be disqualified for a period upto five years,
but we find that such period of disqualification must be supported by           F
tangible reasons lest it would border on being disproportionate.
       21. Consequently, the order dated 9th August 2018 passed by the
Collector and subsequent orders in appeal and in the writ petition are set
aside in part to the extent of prescribing disqualification for a period of
five years and the matter is remitted to the Collector to take into             G
consideration the period of delay/default, the purport for which the election
expenses are sought to be furnished and that the order of disqualification
operates from the date of the order including delay in passing the order
of disqualification. The Collector shall pass the order afresh in respect
of period of disqualification in accordance with law preferably within a
                                                                                H
896                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
      The period of disqualification, if any, will be operative from the date of
      the order passed earlier by the Collector on 9th August, 2018 and any
      elections held as a consequence of the order of disqualification will abide
      the final order to be passed by the Collector.
B               Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 20814-20816 of 2019
                                       AND
                Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) … Diary No. 40018 of 2019
                22. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
C           23. The present appeals arise out of a common order dated
           th
      24 July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of
      Judicature at Bombay whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
      Gulabrao Ananda Patil was dismissed and writ petitions filed by Ritesh
      Suresh Patil and Pradip Nimba Patil were partly allowed.
D            24. The elections of Panchayat Samiti, Village Mukti, Taluk and
      District Dhule, Maharashtra were held on 1st December, 2013. The
      appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil contested the said elections. The results
      were declared on 2nd December, 2013 and the appellant Gulabrao Ananda
      Patil was not elected. The appellant was required to furnish election
      expenses within 30 days in the manner prescribed by the State Election
E
      Commission in terms of Section 15B of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
      and Panchayat Samitis Act, 19618. Since the appellant did not submit the
      account of election expenses within stipulated period, he was served
      with a show-cause notice on 21st July, 2014 to explain as to why he
      should not be disqualified for next five years on account of his failure to
F     submit the account of election expenses. The appellant did not submit
      any reply within the prescribed time i.e. within seven days but on 28 th
      August, 2014, he submitted his explanation that due to ill-health, he could
      not furnish the details of expenses. The Collector vide order dated 3 rd
      November, 2014 disqualified the appellant for contesting elections for a
      period of five years. An appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by
G
      the Divisional Commissioner on 18th December, 2017.
            25. Meanwhile, the elections of Gram Panchayat, Village Mukti
      were notified. The appellant submitted his nomination on 21st September,
      2017 for the post of Sarpanch. Such nomination of the appellant was
H     8   for short, ‘1961 Act’
       LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                897
                   [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

objected by Pradip Nimba Patil (Petitioner in W.P. No. 11929 of 2017           A
before the High Court) but was rejected by the Returning Officer on
25th September, 2017. The appellant was declared elected to the post of
Sarpanch. The Returning Officer held that the disqualification is applicable
only for the elections of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti and not
for the elections of Gram Panchayat. The order of the Returning Officer
                                                                               B
was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11929 of
2017 and in Writ Petition No. 13711 of 2017.
       26. Writ Petition No. 3846 of 2018 was filed by the appellant
Gulabrao Ananda Patil challenging the order dated 18th December, 2017
passed by the Divisional Commissioner confirming the order dated
3rd November, 2014 passed by the Collector to disqualify him for a period      C
of five years on account of his failure to submit account of election
expenses within the stipulated period. Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2017
was filed by Pradip Nimba Patil challenging the order dated
25th September, 2017 passed by the Returning Officer whereby the
objection raised by him to the nomination of appellant Gulabrao Ananda         D
Patil to the post of Sarpanch was rejected. Writ Petition No. 13711 of
2017 was filed by Ritesh Suresh Patil (appellant herein in Civil Appeal
arising out of Special Leave Petition Diary No. 40018 of 2019) with a
prayer to set aside the election of appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil, who
has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Village Mukti, on the ground
that on the date of his nomination, he was disqualified from contesting        E
the said election. A further prayer is also made by appellant Ritesh Suresh
Patil to declare him elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village
Mukti by setting aside the election of Gulabrao Ananda Patil.
        27. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gulabrao
Ananda Patil. The writ petitions filed by Pradip Nimba Patil and Ritesh        F
Suresh Patil were partly allowed by setting aside the order passed by
the Returning Officer rejecting the objections raised by him while the
relief claimed in the writ petition filed by Ritesh Suresh Patil to declare
him elected as Sarpanch was not granted. Appellants Gulabrao Ananda
Patil and Ritesh Suresh Patil are in appeal before this Court.                 G
       28. The argument of the appellant before the High Court was that
the order dated 3rd November, 2014 has been passed without considering
the explanation of the appellant regarding his ill-health and that the order
has been passed mechanically. The High Court found that admittedly
the appellant Gulabrao Ananda Patil has not submitted any account of           H
898                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     election expenses incurred on the date of voting, therefore, there is no
      error in the order passed by the Collector disqualifying the appellant
      from contesting election for next five years. Learned counsel for the
      appellant submitted that disqualification of the appellant was on account
      of non-furnishing of expenses under the 1961 Act. The disqualification
      under Section 15B of the 1961 Act was to contest an election for being
B
      a Councillor. Such disqualification is not applicable to contest an election
      in respect of another local body governed by separate statute, the 1959
      Act.
            29. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Returning
      Officer confers a cause to an aggrieved person to file an election petition
C     under Section 15 of the 1959 Act. Such order of acceptance of nomination
      papers could not be challenged in a writ petition in view of Article
      243-O of the Constitution of India and in view of alternate efficacious
      remedy provided under the 1959 Act.
             30. It is also submitted that the disqualification for a period of five
D     years is wholly disproportionate to the default committed by the appellant
      of not filing the election expenses incurred on the date of election.
             31. Similar argument has been examined in an appeal preferred
      by Laxmi Bai. For the reasons recorded therein, we find that the order
      of disqualification for a period of five years is illegal and untenable and
E     cannot be sustained.
             32. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a judgment
      reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari
      Chand Shri Gopal & Ors.9 to contend that the appellant has substantially
      complied with the provisions of submitting election expenses, therefore,
F     the order of disqualification is not tenable. We do not find any merit in
      the said argument. The election expenses are sought to maintain purity
      of election and to bring transparency in the process. The voters must
      know everything about his candidate during and post elections. Therefore,
      such judgment which deals with excise duty is not applicable to the facts
G     of the present case.
             33. The provisions of Section 15B of the 1961 Act are similar to
      the provisions of Section 14B of the 1959 Act. Section 15B of the 1961
      Act reads as under:

H
      9   (2011) 1 SCC 236
          LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                899
                      [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

          “15B. Disqualification by State Election Commission: -                  A
          (1) 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 the State Election Commission,
          and
                                                                                  B
          (b) has no good reason or justification for such failure, the State
          Election Commission may, by an order published in the Official
          Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and such person shall be
          disqualified for being a Councillor or for contesting an election for
          being a Councillor for a period of five years from the date of this
          order.                                                                  C

          (2) The State Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded,
          remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or reduce the
          period of any such disqualification.”
      34. The appellant was elected as a candidate in respect of election         D
to Gram Panchayat conducted in terms of 1959 Act. Section 13 of the
said Act as it existed prior to substitution by Maharashtra Act 54 of
2018, contemplates disqualifications to contest for election. The relevant
provision reads as under:
             “13. Persons qualified to vote and be elected
                                                                                  E
             (1) Every person who is not less than 21 years of age on the
             last date fixed for making nomination for every general election
             or bye-election and whose name is in the list of voters shall,
             unless disqualified under this Act, or any other law for the time
             being in force, be qualified to vote at the election of a member
                                                                                  F
             for the ward to which such list pertains.
             (2) Every person whose name is in the list of voters shall,
             unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for
             the time being in force, be qualified to be elected for any ward
             of the village. No person whose name is not entered in the list
             of voters for such village shall be qualified to be elected for      G
             any ward of the village…..”
     35. The High Court followed its earlier judgment reported as Gokul
Chandanmal Sangvi v. State of Maharashtra and Others10, holding
10   2018 (4) Mh LJ 911                                                           H
900                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A     that the disqualification incurred by a candidate will entail disqualification
      to contest an election under 1959 Act in terms of Section 13 of the said
      Act. Since the appellant has been disqualified under the provisions of
      1961 Act, therefore, such disqualification is a disqualification for the
      purposes of the elections under 1959 Act as well. Therefore, the appellant
      could not contest elections for Gram Panchayat having been disqualified
B
      for a period of five years under the 1961 Act. We see no reason to
      disagree with the findings of the High Court in this respect.
             36. The High Court in Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi,while
      considering argument that the remedy of an aggrieved person accepting
      nomination papers of the present appellant is by way of election petition,
C     held that if there were illegalities in the election, it would have effect of
      vitiating the election. The High Court held as under:
                “10. ……..There is a reference in this case about the judgment
                in N. P. Punnuswami vs The Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64.
                In Punnuswami’s case, the appellant’s nomination was rejected
D               and he challenged the same by a writ of certiorari to quash the
                order and include his name. The High Court dismissed the petition
                on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order
                of the Returning Officer. The Apex Court held that, the only
                remedy provided was by election petition to be presented after
E               the election was over and even the High Court had no jurisdiction
                under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the
                intermediate period. However, if there were illegalities in the
                election, it would have effect of vitiating the election.
                ***                             ***                      ***
F               17. We find that, the Returning Officer has taken a stand totally
                contradictory to the provisions of law while upholding the
                nomination of respondent No. 5. Since respondent No. 5 was
                disqualified but was allowed to contest the election, the whole
                election stands vitiated.”
G           37. In the judgment reported as N. P. Punnuswami v. The
      Returning Officer11 it was held by this Court that the only remedy
      provided was by election petition to be presented after the election was
      over and even the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of

H     11   AIR 1952 SC 64
       LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                 901
                   [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

the Constitution of India during the intermediate period. It was held that      A
the ground of rejection of nomination paper cannot be urged in any other
manner, at any other stage and before any other court. It further held
that under the election law, the rejection of a nomination paper can be
used as a ground to call election in question before the Authority
prescribed by law in terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India.
                                                                                B
This Court arrived at the following conclusions:
      “(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures
      have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been
      recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should
      be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and
      all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections       C
      should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the
      election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.
      (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme the election law
      in this country as well as in England is that no significance should
      be attached to anything which does not affect the “election”; and         D
      if any irregularities are commit ted while it is in progress and they
      belong to the category or class which, under the law by which
      elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating
      the’’election” and enable the person affected to call it in question,
      they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of           E
      an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before
      any court while the election is in progress.”
       38. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment inserted Part IX in the
Constitution of India. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India as inserted
provides that no election to any panchayats shall be called in question         F
except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such
manner as provided for by or under any law made under the legislature
of the State. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India reads as under:
      “243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-
      Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-                            G
      (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
      constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies
      made or purporting to be made under article 243-K, shall not be
      called in question in any court;
                                                                                H
902             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A            (b) no election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except
             by an election petition presented to such authority and in such
             manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the
             Legislature of a State.”
             39. In terms of such constitutional provisions, Section 15A was
B     inserted by Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1994. The dispute in the present
      appeals does not pertain to election to either House of the Parliament
      but to a local body. The constitutional bar is contained in Article 243-O
      of the Constitution of India in furtherance of which Section 15A was
      inserted in the year 1994. Section 15A of the 1959 Act reads thus:-
C            “15A. Bar to interference by Court in electoral matters.-
             No election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except in
             accordance with the provisions of Section 15; and no court other
             than the Judge referred to in that Section shall entertain any dispute
             in respect of such election.”
D             40. A Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The
      Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.12 examined the N.P.
      Ponnuswami’s case and held that Article 329 of the Constitution of
      India starts with a non obstante clause that notwithstanding contained
      in this Constitution, no election to either house shall be called in question
      except by an election petition. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution
E     of India stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in
      question an election, except in special situations pointed out but left
      unexplored in Ponnuswami. It was held that there is a remedy for every
      wrong done during the election in progress although it is postponed to
      the post-election stage. The Election Tribunal has powers to give relief
F     to an aggrieved candidate.
             41. In respect of elections to a local body, this Court in a judgment
      reported as S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan & Ors.13, approved Full
      Court Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Malam
      Singh v. The Collector, Sehore14, wherein it was held that there is no
G     constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of election
      to local bodies such as Municipalities, Panchayat and the like but it is
      desirable to resolve the election dispute speedily through the machinery

      12 (1978) 1 SCC 405
      13 (1988) 1 SCC 572
      14 AIR 1971 MP 195
H
      LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                  903
                  [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of election petitions. In MalamSingh’s case, the Madhya Pradesh High            A
Court held as under:
      “7. The Act, therefore, furnishes a complete remedy for the
      particular breach complained of. The Legislature prescribed the
      manner in which and the stage at which the rejection of a
      nomination paper can be raised as a ground to call the election in        B
      question. We think it follows by necessary implication from the
      language of Section 357(1) that this ground cannot be urged in
      other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. If
      the grounds on which an election can be called in question could
      be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there    C
      will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Section 357(1) and
      in setting up an election tribunal. The question of improper rejection
      of a nomination paper has, therefore, to be brought up before the
      election tribunal by means of an election petition after the
      conclusion of the election.
                                                                                D
      ***                         ***                                  ***
      17. Lastly, their Lordships stated that the law of election in this
      country does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on
      matters connected with election proceedings, in the following
      passage:—                                                                 E
         “In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to
         the scheme of ……… the Representation of the People Act,
         which as I shall point out later, seems to lie that any matter
         which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought
         up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before       F
         a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate
         stage before any Court. It seems to me that under the election
         law, the only significance, Which the rejection of a nomination
         paper has, consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground
         to call the election in question.”
                                                                                G
      18. There is no constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction
      in respect of elections to Local Bodies such as, Municipalities,
      Panchayats and the like. However, as it is desirable to resolve
      election disputes speedily through the machinery of election
      petitions, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should always
                                                                                H
904                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A               decline to invoke its writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if the
                alternative remedy of an election petition is available. So, their
                Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election
                Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425, stated:—
                   “…… though no legislature can impose limitations on these
B                  constitutional owners it is a sound exercise of discretion to
                   bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about
                   these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore,
                   writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of
                   case.”
C           42. This Court again examined the question in respect of raising a
      dispute relating to an election of a local body before the High Court by
      way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a
      judgment reported as Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh & Ors.15. It
      was held as under:
D               “15. Prayers (b) and (c) aforementioned, evidently, could not have
                been granted in favour of the petitioner by the High Court in
                exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                India. It is true that the High Court exercises a plenary jurisdiction
                under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such jurisdiction
E               being discretionary in nature may not be exercised inter alia keeping
                in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is
                available therefor. (See Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petro
                Corporation Ltd., 2 (2005) 8 SCC 242: 005 (7) SCALE 290.)
                16. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India mandates that all
F               election disputes must be determined only by way of an election
                petition. This by itself may not per se bar judicial review which is
                the basic structure of the Constitution, but ordinarily such
                jurisdiction would not be exercised. There may be some cases
                where a writ petition would be entertained but in this case we are
                not concerned with the said question.
G
                17. In C. Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu and Others :
                (1998) 8 SCC 703, a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed
                that a writ petition should not be entertained when the main question
                which fell for decision before the High Court was non-compliance

H     15   (2005) 8 SCC 383
       LAXMIBAI v. THE COLLECTOR, NANDED & ORS.                                905
                   [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

      of the provisions of the Act which was one of the grounds for an         A
      election petition in terms Rule 12 framed under the Act.”
       43. Section 10A of the 1959 Act and Section 9A of the 1961 Act
read with Articles 243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with Article 324
of the Constitution of India. In view of the judgments referred, we find
that the remedy of an aggrieved person accepting or rejecting nomination       B
of a candidate is by way of an election petition in view of the bar created
under Section 15A of the 1959 Act. The said Act is a complete code
providing machinery for redressal to the grievances pertaining to election
as contained in Section 15 of the 1959 Act. The High Court though
exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution     C
of India but such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and may not be
exercised in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is
available and more so exercise restraint in terms of Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India. Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute,
the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. It is a
prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court not to interfere in       D
the election matters, especially after declaration of the results of the
elections but relegate the parties to the remedy contemplated by the
statute. In view of the above, the writ petition should not have been
entertained by the High Court. However, the order of the High Court
that the appellant has not furnished the election expenses incurred on         E
the date of election does not warrant any interference.
       44. Consequently, the order passed by the Collector on 3rd
November, 2014 and subsequent orders in appeal and in the writ petition
are set aside in part to the extent of prescribing disqualification for a
period of five years and the matter is remitted to the Collector to take       F
into consideration the nature of default, the purport for which the election
expenses are sought to be furnished and that the order of disqualification
operates from the date of the order including delay in passing the order
of disqualification. The Collector shall pass the order afresh in respect
of period of disqualification in accordance with law preferably within a
                                                                               G
period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The period of disqualification, if any, will be operative from the date of
the order passed earlier by the Collector on 3rd November, 2014 and that
any elections held as a consequence of the order of disqualification will
abide the final order to be passed by the Collector.
                                                                               H
906              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2020] 2 S.C.R.


A            45. In view of the above, Civil Appeals arising out of Special
      Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 16837 of 2019 and 20814-20816 of 2019
      are allowed in the abovementioned terms; whereas Civil Appeal arising
      out of Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 40018 of 2019) is dismissed.

B     Devika Gujral                                        Appeals disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H