Gurcharan Singh Sangha vs Election Commission Of India & Ors.

Rupinderjit Chahal, J.

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure P-8), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was disqualified from being chosen as, and from being, a member of either house of Parliament or of the legislative assembly or legislative counsel of a State for a period of three years, was dismissed by respondent No.1.

Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner contested the general election to the legislative assembly of Punjab held in 2022 from the Faridkot constituency Assembly but was unsuccessful. In terms of Section 78 of the Act, every contesting candidate is required to lodge an account of election expenses within 30 days from the date of declaration of result, which was declared on 10.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 26.04.2022, followed by a show cause notice dated 15.06.2022, issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 89(5) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for failure to lodge the account of election expenses. It is case of the petitioner that, owing to medical exigencies, he could not respond to the said show cause notice, resulting in passing of order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner was disqualified for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure P-8).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, after the election, the petitioner diligently visited the office of the District Election Officer (DEO), Faridkot, and deposited the expenditure register on 18.02.2022. Thereafter, he visited the office of the DEO on three occasions, i.e. on 21.02.2022, 22.02.2022 and 23.02.2022 for submitting the diesel bills relating to the election campaign. However, the office remain closed on all these working days, thereby preventing the petitioner from submitting the said bills. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the concerned authorities and also sent photographs of the closed office through his mobile phone as evidence thereof. The diesel bills were ultimately submitted on 24.02.2022, which, according to the learned counsel was within the stipulated period.

With regard to letter dated 26.04.2022, learned counsel submitted that, upon receipt thereof, the petitioner immediately approached the DEO and apprised him of the circumstances. The petitioner was assured that the said letter would be withdrawn. However, contrary to the said assurance, a show cause notice dated 15.06.2022 was issued. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not submit a reply to the said show cause notice as he remained bed ridden for a considerable period on account of his medical condition. Upon recovering, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.1 for seeking removal of disqualification under Section 11 of the Act. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) and 20.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) be quashed and respondent No.1 be directed to remove the disqualification imposed upon the petitioner and restore his eligibility to contest elections.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and supported the impugned order. Relying upon the findings recorded in order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has raised only bald assertions, unsupported by any cogent material. It was further submitted that the petitioner had himself admitted before respondent No.1 that he had failed to submit the complete account of his election expenses before the DEO, Faridkot within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election result. Learned counsel, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. It is not in dispute that, under Section 78 of the Act, every contesting candidate is under a statutory obligation to lodge a true and complete account of election expenses within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the compliance with the said mandatory requirement. Rather, as is evident from the impugned order the petitioner himself admitted before respondent No.1 that the complete account of election expenses had not been submitted before District Election Officer within the prescribed period.

The explanation sought to be furnished by the petitioner regarding the alleged closure of the District Election Officer on certain dates and the subsequent submissions of the reasoned bills does not advance his case. Even if the said explanation is taken at its face value it does not establish that the petitioner had submitted the complete account of election expenses within the statutory period and in accordance with the requirements of law.

Likewise, the plea that the District Election Officer had assured the petitioner that the communication dated 26.04.2022 would be withdrawn cannot over ride the statutory procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous material to substantiate such assertion. Despite the issuance of show cause notice dated 15.06.2022 under Rule 89(5) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the petitioner admittedly failed to submit any reply thereto. The explanation that he remained bed ridden for nearly 3 years on account of medical exigencies is also unpersuasive, as no satisfactory reason has been furnished as to why the notice could not had been furnished through authorised representative or legal counsel, particularly when the consequence of non compliance had been specifically brought to his notice.

The statutory authorities afforded the petitioner adequate opportunity to explain the alleged default which he failed to avail. The authority duly considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and, on appreciation of the material on record, recorded a reasoned finding that the petitioner had failed to furnish the complete account of election expenditure within the prescribed period and have not shown sufficient cause warranting interference with the order of disqualification.

This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily sit as an appellate Court over findings of fact recorded by a competent statutory authority. Inference is warranted only where such findings are shown to be perverse, vague on no evidence, arbitrary or otherwise vitiated by violence of principles of natural justice or patent illegality. No such infirmity had been demonstrated in the present case. The impugned order had been passed after due consideration of the material available on record and are in consonance with the statutory scheme.

Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with orders dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) and 20.05.2026 (Annexure P-8). The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.