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

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State Election Commission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected members of Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.In doing so, a division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Ashok S Kinagi upheld the single bench order which had dismissed the challenge. It observed that appellants were bound to submit the list of election expenses before the State Election Commission within 30 days from the date of declaration of election. However, admittedly, the appellants failed to do so and have even failed to show any good reasons or justification for such failure.It further observed that the election process was set into motion on April 28, 2022 whereas the writ appeal was filed on May 4. Thus, the appeal cannot be entertained at this stage, after the election process has commenced. The appellants, K. Srinivas and others, had challenged the order dated 18th April 2022. The single bench while dismissing the petition had noted, "The legislature enacted the provisions of section 16C in the 1964 Act (Karnataka Municipalities Act) mandating the lodging of accounts of electoral expenditure is for the purpose of bolstering the transparency in and purity of the election process in general and accountability of the candidates in particular. This apart, the prescription of lodging of accounts of electoral expenditure with default clause of disqualification is aimed at removing the propensity for corruption and bribery in the election process." It had observed that the rationale of imposing a limit on expenditure incurred or authorised by a candidate in an election is to eliminate, as far as possible, the pernicious influence of 'big money' on the election process. Senior Advocate MR Rajagopal for the Appellants contended that before passing an order of disqualification, no enquiry was held despite their filing a reply, and hence the order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Findings: The bench observed that a co-joint reading of Section 16-B and Section 16-C of the Act of 1964 clearly reveals that Section 16-B is a mandatory provision and Section 16-C clearly stipulates the consequences of flouting the mandate of Section 16-B of the said Act of 1963. Thus, duty has been imposed by the law upon the contesting candidate to submit the election expenses within the period of 30 days. It then held, "The appellants are bound to submit the list of election expenses before the State Election Commission within 30 days from the date of declaration of election. Admittedly, the appellants have failed to do so. The appellants have not shown any good reasons or justification for failure to do so. The reasons assigned by the appellants are not justified. The writ court considering the material on record and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order." As regards the contention of the appellants that mere issuance of notification dated 28.4.2022, process of election cannot be deemed to have commenced, the bench said, "It is well established principles of law that the election process commenced with publication of the provisional list of voters. In the instant case, after the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has notified the calendar of events dated 28.4.2022. From the perusal of the notification, it discloses that the date and time of issuance of election notification by the Deputy Commissioner is on 2.5.2022 and if voting is necessary, the date and day of conducting voting is on 20.5.2022. Thus, the election process has been set in motion." It added, "The respondent No.1 has notified the calendar of events on 28.4.2022 and the appellants filed this writ appeal on 4.5.2022. By the time writ appeal was filed, the process of election was set in motion. Therefore, in our considered view, the writ appeal filed by the appellants cannot be entertained at this stage." The court also refused to grant the prayer made by the appellants for condoning the fault committed by them. Case Title: K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195 Date of Order: 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022 Appearance: Senior Advocate M.R. RAJAGOPAL, a/w advocate H N BASAVARAJU for appellants; Senior Advocate K.N. PHANINDRA, a/w advocate VAISHALI HEDGE, for R-1; AAG R. SUBRAMANYA, A/W AGA G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, FOR R-2 AND 3 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

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

Mustafa Plumber

Tags